Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I think that when you are skirting the edge of legality, one certainly should be concerned with consequences. When discussing a personal opinion about anything, even if it is your hatred for a particular sub-group of humanity, one should not be concerned with physical consequences. Of course there are consequences in that people may look at you differently than before espousing your opinion, and may even treat you differently. Some may get mad and yell at you. All of these are expected consequences. When we're dealing in the realm of art, people who don't agree with you won't patronize your art, that is a consequence. At no time is it legitimate to react physically against a person for the espousal of their opinions, no matter how heinous, IMHO.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The only thing I would disagree with is that Free Speech is the foundational right upon which all others are based. To me, that would be the right to personal property that can not be take nor violated without cause and due process.

I think that is a fair point. I can't really disagree. But rights themselves cannot be declared without the ability to do so. On the other hand, property or territory rights have been defended since time and memorial. I'd have to think about it.

Real billboard in Berkeley:

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you can tell me the cause and effect between words and consequences you may have a point.

Basically you are saying that it's a decision made by others to do violence against you due to what you said and that isn't your fault?
That's kinda like stirring up a hornet's nest and you get stung and you said oops not my fault.
Though I do see your point in a philosophical level.

Yes, your decision to punch me is a consequence of your inability to control your understanding, your emotions, and your actions. It is the consequence of your tendency to inflict violence on others. (Not you in particular)

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I understand but we are talking about risks.
I think I do understand your point. It doesn't matter if you say something or not. Some people will just decide to hurt you even if you didn't say anything.
Cause and effect? I say cause and risk.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is close to impossible to argue with what you have said. It is about 99% ironclad and almost above any type of constructive criticism. The ONLY thing I will say, is just remember this one CRITICAL factor: if you feel Muslims living in France had no right to do what they did in response to the cartoons, then you must question whether the cartoonists had a genuine right to be in the position to provoke a reaction.

If this had never happened before, then I would not have said what I just said. Since it HAS happened many times in the past, the cartoonists were taking a very large uncalculated risk in drawing the cartoons and expecting no violence at all.

The ONLY way we can prevent any of this ever happening again is if the West is completely separate to Islam and Islam is completely separate to the West. That means no meddling by the West in Muslims countries, no Western military bases there, no funding allies that harm Muslims countries and no oppression of Muslims within the West who pledge and demonstrate their allegiance to the state in which they live is higher than their allegiance to their religion. Islam would not be allowed to commit any acts of violence against the West in any form unless a legitimate imminent threat is detected. Western tourists would not be allowed to be singled out and then targeted for acts of violence.

So what is it? Freedom of Speech in regards to aspects of our own culture and societies without targeting foreign cultures and societies and expecting them to handle unpleasant speech in the same way we do, OR 100% censorship of any speech that can be considered unpleasant? I don't believe there is any other choice.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What? I didn't say it was. There are laws against murder though... even murder that is a reaction to free speech.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

WTF... The assholes that murdered those poor people, had legal recourse as well as civil. I thought it was extremely rude and intentionally offensive to Muslims to draw the Prophet but under no circumstances should they have expected to be murdered over it.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Can't agree in the slightest with your point. The actions against Charlie Hebdo were criminal and inhumane by any definition of the word. The men who took that action were not acting out of emotional reaction but out of calculated evil. If Charlie Hebdo had never published the cartoons, they would've brought their terrorism elsewhere. The cartoons were not a cause, they were a justification.

Arguing as you have is like saying that gas stations have been robbed before, so if you are operating a gas station you should expect that, as a consequence, you should be robbed.

I'd add further that South Park has had Mohamed illustrated in their animated show. As far as I know, no Muslim in the US has felt the need to attack and kill anyone involved.

As somebody who did support the idea of 100% unrestricted Freedom of Expression (FoE) in the past, I have now come to realise you cannot have 100% unrestricted FoE without bad consequences. If you don't believe me, I am happy to elaborate on examples of FoE you would NOT support. I guarantee I can.

There HAS to be some type of restriction and it's far better to have that scenario than 100% full censorship.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

An argument put forward during the Muhammad Cartoon controversy was that everyone should have stood up to the threat of violence and showed the cartoons, but they refused to. Even a decade later they refuse to republish them.

An argument put forward during the Satanic Verses affair was that writers should stand up and support Rushdie, denounce the threat of violence against a writer, but they didn't. Instead, a majority capitulated to to the threat. Some even said Rushdie deserved it.

By capitulating, we incentivized the threat and violence to the point where we will no publish works that offend one religion. We've contorted our rights to appease those who kill for blasphemy.

There is a great book in defence of Rushdie called "For Rushdie: Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech." these Arabs and Muslims turned out to be the greater defenders of free speech than the westerners, many doing so while at risk from retaliation by their own governments. Hope is not lost so long as people still speak up for and defend, and that goes for Muslims as well.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you fear the enemy then the enemy win. I know many people are afraid of Muslims. And it shows that propaganda is working. I don't like but that's the reality. Fear of consequences is what makes some people shut up. But then again there are brave people who don't give a f.

Oh and I just thought of something. Free speech is like gambling. If you go to a casino expect the risks and rewards. If you lose then that's on you.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
As somebody who did support the idea of 100% unrestricted Freedom of Expression (FoE) in the past, I have now come to realise you cannot have 100% unrestricted FoE without bad consequences. If you don't believe me, I am happy to elaborate on examples of FoE you would NOT support. I guarantee I can.

There HAS to be some type of restriction and it's far better to have that scenario than 100% full censorship.

The only restriction is personal choice and responsibility.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you fear the enemy then the enemy win. I know many people are afraid of Muslims. And it shows that propaganda is working. I don't like but that's the reality. Fear of consequences is what makes some people shut up. But then again there are brave people who don't give a f.

Oh and I just thought of something. Free speech is like gambling. If you go to a casino expect the risks and rewards. If you lose then that's on you.

Speaking and writing is a victimless endeavour. Censorship isn't. That's the reality of it.

Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from idiots who will try to remove that freedom from you.

Our freedoms (talking the west here) is a legal thing, so if someone stops you (punches you when you say something), you can then bring them to court and get some form of consolation..be it financial or just watching that person who tried to stop your freedoms lose all theirs.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from idiots who will try to remove that freedom from you.

Our freedoms (talking the west here) is a legal thing, so if someone stops you (punches you when you say something), you can then bring them to court and get some form of consolation..be it financial or just watching that person who tried to stop your freedoms lose all theirs.

That is at least on honest way of talking about it. I agree.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
Can't agree in the slightest with your point. The actions against Charlie Hebdo were criminal and inhumane by any definition of the word. The men who took that action were not acting out of emotional reaction but out of calculated evil. If Charlie Hebdo had never published the cartoons, they would've brought their terrorism elsewhere. The cartoons were not a cause, they were a justification.

The trouble is you don't want to be in the position where you are able to agree with me. If anything I am saying is correct, then you would have to take responsibility for your own actions (or those of the government of the country that represents you) and that is a compromise you are unwilling to make.That in itself is not a problem, I don't want the actions of the government that represents me to make me responsible for what they do without my consent. But you go further and demand Muslims should have that very right you are referring to taken away from them. Because those Muslims that did Charlie Hebdo cannot then be seen as representative of all Muslims or a problem with Islam itself.

You are essentially using an emotive argument (Dark Ghost is justifying what the terrorists did!) to support your claim that what happened was objectively 100% the fault of the perpetrators while ignoring that reasonably, it was not. But you want to deny Muslims the emotive argument (hey, I didn't and never would do that! why are you blaming me!) and expect them to accept your argument (publishing the cartoons did not in ANY way cause the terrorists attack) which is NOT based on reason. It's a clear double standard.

Arguing as you have is like saying that gas stations have been robbed before, so if you are operating a gas station you should expect that, as a consequence, you should be robbed.

That is a horrible analogy and in no way relates to what we are talking about. A FAR more relevant analogy would be that if there was a history of robberies occurring from the same group over and over and it had finally been established the reason they are robbing you is because you have a sign up that says "Islam should be banned" and from THAT point onward you do not take away the sign and another robbery by the same groups occurs, then YES you are partially responsible. If you take the sign down and THEN a robbery by the same group occurred, THEN you would have a point.

I'd add further that South Park has had Mohamed illustrated in their animated show. As far as I know, no Muslim in the US has felt the need to attack and kill anyone involved.

Then it must seem there is a problem with French radical Muslims? So why blame all Muslims outside of France?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yes I see your point. Some people just decide to be offended and violent. You have the right to risk that. But then again it doesn't even matter because some people will just decide to be offended by something about you like your looks and just hurt you.
Basically EVERYONE decides if they are offended or not.

originally posted by: Kali74
WTF... The assholes that murdered those poor people, had legal recourse as well as civil. I thought it was extremely rude and intentionally offensive to Muslims to draw the Prophet but under no circumstances should they have expected to be murdered over it.

You and others keep implying that I am justifying the acts of the terrorists. I am not. The terrorists deserved to be executed on the spot for their actions or at least spend the rest of their lives in the worst jail imaginable.

I didn't say they "should have expected to be murdered", I said they took an uncalculated risk by doing what they did when they were not legally obligated to take that uncalculated risk.

You are failing to understand the point that I am making.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
An argument put forward during the Muhammad Cartoon controversy was that everyone should have stood up to the threat of violence and showed the cartoons, but they refused to. Even a decade later they refuse to republish them.

An argument put forward during the Satanic Verses affair was that writers should stand up and support Rushdie, denounce the threat of violence against a writer, but they didn't. Instead, a majority capitulated to to the threat. Some even said Rushdie deserved it.

By capitulating, we incentivized the threat and violence to the point where we will no publish works that offend one religion. We've contorted our rights to appease those who kill for blasphemy.

There is a great book in defence of Rushdie called "For Rushdie: Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech." these Arabs and Muslims turned out to be the greater defenders of free speech than the westerners, many doing so while at risk from retaliation by their own governments. Hope is not lost so long as people still speak up for and defend, and that goes for Muslims as well.

Those are all valid points which I agree with. But let us go back to what I said in my last reply to you: this is only a problem because the West and Islam cross paths. Either we accept that we can only hold the West and its citizens (including Muslims living there) to one consistent standard and cannot expect non-Western countries to apply the same standard to their own population AND Westerners living there permanently, OR we cannot mix Islam and the West.

I believe not mixing is the more reasonable option because it will ensure very few incidents CAN take place, but it seems morally bankrupt to allow people in non-Western countries to suffer. But we would have to allow that to happen if we want to be consistent.

Please also don't forget that we in the West are not 100% innocent bystanders here. It's not as if we saw Muslims and other groups fighting, peacefully intervened and asked them both stop what they are doing.