Crazy LittleThing
Interesting thread. Too bad so many responses are obliterated by the obvious problems that the site has been experiencing for the past few years.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
YourValentine
@GFF - very interesting comments and I won't yell, lol. Actually, it takes me almost as long to read your posts as for you to write them because English is not my native language :-)
When we started this discussion it was not all about US laws, it was about any Western laws. I do not see the huge difference between US constitution and German constitution with regard to the freedom of speech except that we have different laws to limit the freedom like for example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust, a very strange law but it comes from our history. The USA, on the other hand, has anti-stalking laws and I wish we had them because in Germany you have virtually no protection against a stalker as long as he does not physically attack you.
I had to google the fetish crush video and if I understood correctly the court did not say that cruelty vs animals is protected under the US constitution - they said that the law against these videos was unconstitutional because it was too broad and allowed the government to interfere with the freedom of speech too easily. All the government has to do is to ask the legislation for a new law that complies with the ruling and still forbids such videos.
What people do to to stop the Westboro fanatics is the same Germans do to stop the constitutionally protected Nazi rallies: they organise a counter-demonstration and block them. I think it is a good thing when the majority shows "flags" and exercises their own rights to block the excesses of such fanatic minorities. In my opinion it is so much better than limiting the constitutionally protected basic rights because once you start there is no turning back. When I read your post I believe that your main concern is that Western laws do not refelect common decency and therefore there is a problem with the society. I often feel that way but in my opinion we really have to grind our teeth and be very careful to which extent we make common decency a basis to change our freedom of speech. I really prefer to live in a country where pee is exhibited in a theater than in a country where the majority defines decency and moral even if my own moral is much more restricting than my country's laws.
With regard to the Mohammed video another element comes into the picture: violence. Many Western magazines did not reprint the Danish cartoons from fear of retaliation and violence. I think ALL magazines should have reprinted them because now we are not talking about a society making their own rules but we are talking about bullying by people who never intend to play by the rules but who want to enforce their own values by sheer force. As soon as flags are burnt and people are murdered the conversation cannot be about limitataions of the freedom of speech, imo it must be about defending the freedom of speech against these killers.
Btw - when I write up such a long post I always copy it into the notepad before hitting the enter button - you never know :-)
When we started this discussion it was not all about US laws, it was about any Western laws. I do not see the huge difference between US constitution and German constitution with regard to the freedom of speech except that we have different laws to limit the freedom like for example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust, a very strange law but it comes from our history. The USA, on the other hand, has anti-stalking laws and I wish we had them because in Germany you have virtually no protection against a stalker as long as he does not physically attack you.
I had to google the fetish crush video and if I understood correctly the court did not say that cruelty vs animals is protected under the US constitution - they said that the law against these videos was unconstitutional because it was too broad and allowed the government to interfere with the freedom of speech too easily. All the government has to do is to ask the legislation for a new law that complies with the ruling and still forbids such videos.
What people do to to stop the Westboro fanatics is the same Germans do to stop the constitutionally protected Nazi rallies: they organise a counter-demonstration and block them. I think it is a good thing when the majority shows "flags" and exercises their own rights to block the excesses of such fanatic minorities. In my opinion it is so much better than limiting the constitutionally protected basic rights because once you start there is no turning back. When I read your post I believe that your main concern is that Western laws do not refelect common decency and therefore there is a problem with the society. I often feel that way but in my opinion we really have to grind our teeth and be very careful to which extent we make common decency a basis to change our freedom of speech. I really prefer to live in a country where pee is exhibited in a theater than in a country where the majority defines decency and moral even if my own moral is much more restricting than my country's laws.
With regard to the Mohammed video another element comes into the picture: violence. Many Western magazines did not reprint the Danish cartoons from fear of retaliation and violence. I think ALL magazines should have reprinted them because now we are not talking about a society making their own rules but we are talking about bullying by people who never intend to play by the rules but who want to enforce their own values by sheer force. As soon as flags are burnt and people are murdered the conversation cannot be about limitataions of the freedom of speech, imo it must be about defending the freedom of speech against these killers.
Btw - when I write up such a long post I always copy it into the notepad before hitting the enter button - you never know :-)
thomasquinn 32989
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
By that token, stating opposition against radical Muslims is not freedom of speech, but rather a hate crime because it might incite violence.
All hail TQ, paragon to the radical conservative right wing, and his most holy justifiable demands for censorship.
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
By that token, stating opposition against radical Muslims is not freedom of speech, but rather a hate crime because it might incite violence.
All hail TQ, paragon to the radical conservative right wing, and his most holy justifiable demands for censorship.
YourValentine
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
Really funny from someone who calls other people fascists. Long live the thought police.
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
Really funny from someone who calls other people fascists. Long live the thought police.
thomasquinn 32989
So, you are of the opinion that Al Qaeda-propaganda films are free speech then?
Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS.
Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS.
john bodega
Bottom line for me is that it's not alright to just say "you can't make this movie/song/joke because if you do, arabs will be up in arms about it!" because it's fucking patronising to the majority that doesn't go and lynch people. It's a very politically correct way of saying that they are all violent, cranky savages.
It's on them to respond as civilised people (and many have). And it's on us to know a Dick Move when we see one. This movie was a dick move.
It's on them to respond as civilised people (and many have). And it's on us to know a Dick Move when we see one. This movie was a dick move.
Saint Jiub
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
So, you are of the opinion that Al Qaeda-propaganda films are free speech then?
Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS.[/QUOTE]
I suppose if some these films do not specifically advocate violence then some Al Qaeda films would be free speech.
There are some who disagree whether Terek Mehanna should have been convicted. Perhaps Terek got a raw deal.
So, you are of the opinion that Al Qaeda-propaganda films are free speech then?
Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS.[/QUOTE]
I suppose if some these films do not specifically advocate violence then some Al Qaeda films would be free speech.
There are some who disagree whether Terek Mehanna should have been convicted. Perhaps Terek got a raw deal.
Saint Jiub
Info about Terek ...
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all[/url]
YourValentine
From what I read in the article you posted it looks like the verdict in the Terek Mehanna case falls in the same category of abandoning civil rights under the pretense of "war against terrorism" as other cases like torture, jailing without due process, kidnapping foreign citizens etc. For me the above case is an example for how hard it is for people to uphold the freedom of speech in an emotionally charged environment. The citizens should stand up against such an erossion of civil liberties because next time they can be the victims.
In the mean time I uphold thomasquinn's right to call me a liar and a creep although I think it is very offensive language.
In the mean time I uphold thomasquinn's right to call me a liar and a creep although I think it is very offensive language.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
Here's the big double standard... how come religious bashing only creates an outstanding violent reaction or violent threats if it insults Muslims?
A few years ago the creators of South Park received death threats because they were poking fun at the absurdity of making fun of Islam, and since portraying a visualization of Mohammed is considered blasphemy they decided to show Mohammed in a bear costume to ensure nobody sees his face... and yet still they received death threats. Compared to the way how South Park has made fun of other religions, this was just a minor thing.
Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam? If for once authorities in Islamic countries cracked down on rioters and any group that incites violence we wouldn't have this problem.
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.[/QUOTE]
Here's the big double standard... how come religious bashing only creates an outstanding violent reaction or violent threats if it insults Muslims?
A few years ago the creators of South Park received death threats because they were poking fun at the absurdity of making fun of Islam, and since portraying a visualization of Mohammed is considered blasphemy they decided to show Mohammed in a bear costume to ensure nobody sees his face... and yet still they received death threats. Compared to the way how South Park has made fun of other religions, this was just a minor thing.
Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam? If for once authorities in Islamic countries cracked down on rioters and any group that incites violence we wouldn't have this problem.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam?[/QUOTE]
Until the majority of its adherents no longer live in the dark ages. Until then, they will react like savages when their worldview is challenged by people thousands of miles away. The middle east does not have many evolved people capable of critical and rational thought, and this isn't going to change any time soon.
Therefore is up to the west to stay out of their business and not provoke them. We should know better. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. Even if we are offering them 72 tangible virgins per male over 18, and a million dollars to every person who can spell their name. If they don't want it, then we should get the hell out.
Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam?[/QUOTE]
Until the majority of its adherents no longer live in the dark ages. Until then, they will react like savages when their worldview is challenged by people thousands of miles away. The middle east does not have many evolved people capable of critical and rational thought, and this isn't going to change any time soon.
Therefore is up to the west to stay out of their business and not provoke them. We should know better. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. Even if we are offering them 72 tangible virgins per male over 18, and a million dollars to every person who can spell their name. If they don't want it, then we should get the hell out.
thomasquinn 32989
Muslims are no better and no worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.
Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government.
And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS.
@YV: Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of your very liberal free speech views. So liberal, in fact, that you include spamming this forum under free speech. Who's a victim of political correctness now, YV?
Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government.
And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS.
@YV: Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of your very liberal free speech views. So liberal, in fact, that you include spamming this forum under free speech. Who's a victim of political correctness now, YV?
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops.[/QUOTE]
This atrocity will never be seen as terrorism, because "terrorism" has become a word used against brown people in other countries somewhere out there, not white people in the west.
Even if AIDS kills a thousand times more people than brown people kill white people, it will still never be seen as terrorism. Even when Anders Breivik went on his shooting spree in Norway, most media sources refused to use the word "terrorist." Never mind "Christian terrorist." Which is accurate.
It's all part of the agenda of garnering public support for wars, as if these people we're killing are somehow more deserving of it than when they kill us (i.e. 9/11). So we need to paint them with a different brush and reinforce it daily, and people will come to believe that we can go there and fix their problems, even if we kill a hundred thousand of them. But it's a worthy cause! A damn good tactic, and it works.
Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops.[/QUOTE]
This atrocity will never be seen as terrorism, because "terrorism" has become a word used against brown people in other countries somewhere out there, not white people in the west.
Even if AIDS kills a thousand times more people than brown people kill white people, it will still never be seen as terrorism. Even when Anders Breivik went on his shooting spree in Norway, most media sources refused to use the word "terrorist." Never mind "Christian terrorist." Which is accurate.
It's all part of the agenda of garnering public support for wars, as if these people we're killing are somehow more deserving of it than when they kill us (i.e. 9/11). So we need to paint them with a different brush and reinforce it daily, and people will come to believe that we can go there and fix their problems, even if we kill a hundred thousand of them. But it's a worthy cause! A damn good tactic, and it works.
Mr.Jingles
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Muslims are no better and no worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.
Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government.
And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS.
[/QUOTE]
Every religion has extremists, but my whole issue is with the GOVERNEMENTS NOT STOPPING EXTREMISTS. Here in America at least we can expect authorities to crack down on abortion clinic bombers, kidnappers, and murderers.
How often do we see on the news that authorities in Muslim countries cracking down on Islamist extremists?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/bangladesh-court-asks-govt-why-it-failed-to-protect-buddhists-from-attacks-over-quran-photo/2012/10/03/643a1558-0d58-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html
Just look at how many Buddhists in Bangladesh are being victims of Muslim rage just because some idiot thought of posting a burning Quran picture on Facebook.
At least for once, Bangladesh authorities are (sadly way too late) making a minimal effort to provide some sort of relief to Buddhists victims of violence. However, justice will not be served until those responsible are brought to justice.
Muslims are no better and no worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc.
Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government.
And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS.
[/QUOTE]
Every religion has extremists, but my whole issue is with the GOVERNEMENTS NOT STOPPING EXTREMISTS. Here in America at least we can expect authorities to crack down on abortion clinic bombers, kidnappers, and murderers.
How often do we see on the news that authorities in Muslim countries cracking down on Islamist extremists?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/bangladesh-court-asks-govt-why-it-failed-to-protect-buddhists-from-attacks-over-quran-photo/2012/10/03/643a1558-0d58-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html
Just look at how many Buddhists in Bangladesh are being victims of Muslim rage just because some idiot thought of posting a burning Quran picture on Facebook.
At least for once, Bangladesh authorities are (sadly way too late) making a minimal effort to provide some sort of relief to Buddhists victims of violence. However, justice will not be served until those responsible are brought to justice.