Freedom of Speech and Islam

Riwka, the WHOLE point of my earlier posts was that this is what freedom of speech is all about... I find the placards abhorrant... but I don't think (unlike the Govt of the UK) civil society is so fragile that I need the govt to round them all up and arrest them for believing what it says on the placards... its the same standard that everyone seems to want to judge the cartoons by.

But then you say 'ahhh but they want to kill people' and then I say
'secular philisophical principles shouldnt have benchmarks... you are either free to say something, or your not'...

What I said in my original post is that you either ban all 'incitement, hurtful and offensive' speech in this context or you don't... not say 'ahh ahh freedom of speech' and then get angry when you see/hear something which offends or makes you feel threatened.

Be one way or the other.. not some hypocritical mish mash of the two that suits you when it suits you (if you know what I mean...)

Q

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

I somewhat disagree.

The violent clashs about that whole 'cartoon conspiracy' may happen in the Middle East and not in London or Paris.

BUT:

Those who are responsible for all this organized clashes, want to change the WEST:

They want the Danish media not to publish such cartoons

That means also: They want the EU to change, then probably the U.S , etc...

Like it or not, we are all Danes now. That's what I wanted to say with this.


[edit on 10-2-2006 by Riwka]

I just want many in this thread to know that I have given as many 1-liner warns in this thread that I have totalled, beforehand.

I do not think you guys should be proud of this accomplishment, I am just letting you all know.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

as indivuals we all have a understanding of god and what the universal energy surrounding our mind be it even that is comprised of. i think scientific outreach towards better and enhanced technoilogical efficiency levels will flourish wealths of information, creating quasars of data, further ditracting humanity from the all knowing source of the universe. the more you know the less you know, simple logic dictates.

Surely, if you limit Freedom of Speech to what one group finds offensive than it defeats the whole purpose?

To me, those messages calling for murder, I laugh at and see as childish. The cartoons, I myself see as more offensive. However, you can't support one over the other. To many, those cartoons are the same as me saying "Kill such and such", just like the messages on the boards are.

It is a fine balance and to me - living in the U.K. - it feels as though, half the time we favour minorities over the majority and the other half we kick them in the teeth while they are down.

Worse yet though was the media response, many of those who supportes such freedom of speech slammed the muslims for what they have to say. I don't like the idea of freedom of speech being exclusive based on opinion, but rather regulations that should apply across the spectrum.

Originally posted by Qoelet

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
It is important to note, before jumping upon the bandwagon that declares free speech to be anathema to Islam/Muslims, that censorship based upon the possibility of causing offence to members of a religious community also happens in Western society.

VERY true...

Q

1-lined by TC

[edit on 19-3-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Why am I STILL getting 1line U2Us about this weeks and many 1line U2Us (about this thread) later when I am unable to edit the thread now anyway? Will I get this everytime someone decides to post on this thread?

Or do I now get a U2U about excessive quoting?

Originally posted by Qoelet
Why am I STILL getting 1line U2Us about this weeks and many 1line U2Us (about this thread) later when I am unable to edit the thread now anyway? Will I get this everytime someone decides to post on this thread?

I'm sure the point has been driven home.

Or do I now get a U2U about excessive quoting?

No, just a reminder that issues like this are best handled via U2U or by utilizing the "Suggestion' button if you would like Staff review.

Originally posted by Mirthful Me
No, just a reminder that issues like this are best handled via U2U or by utilizing the "Suggestion' button if you would like Staff review.

Fair point.

Hopefully there'll be little need in future anyway (i've managed two lines already )

Many thanks,

Q

Originally posted by Qoelet
What I said in my original post is that you either ban all 'incitement, hurtful and offensive' speech in this context or you don't... not say 'ahh ahh freedom of speech' and then get angry when you see/hear something which offends or makes you feel threatened.

Be one way or the other.. not some hypocritical mish mash of the two that suits you when it suits you (if you know what I mean...)

Freedom of speech affords us the ability to get angry when we see/hear something which offends or makes one feel threatened.
Freedom is a snowball affect and likewise for its ugly cousin, oppression. I actually fail to see the argument here? Maybe I’m not understanding and I should go back and read the original post – I’ll do that.

Originally posted by knowseek
Maybe I’m not understanding and I should go back and read the original post – I’ll do that.

Well, my original post says it all in a nutshell... posts after generally in response to responses... or something...

yeah...

Q

[edit on 22-3-2006 by knowseek]
Someone assisted me with a better understanding of the point your trying to get across - sometimes I'm biased and fail to see some main points. At this time I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the post. I just wanted to comment to the extent of my understanding of the said topic...

Cheers


[edit on 22-3-2006 by knowseek]

Originally posted by Riwka

Originally posted by Qoelet


I have to be honest, I was really talking about FoS in the west...

ok - you mean the interpretation of "freedom of speach" those Muslims who demonstrated e.g. in London demanded for themselves?




Some of the placards talked about killing.

That might be incitement to murder, at least I think so.





[edit on 10-2-2006 by Riwka]

[edit on 11-2-2006 by Thomas Crowne]

Cute picture. Too bad the message on the sign is fake, though. It's like that other one, with hte GI and the Iraqi boy holding up a cardboard sign where you could add your own message...

Originally posted by knowseek

[edit on 22-3-2006 by knowseek]
Someone assisted me with a better understanding of the point your trying to get across - sometimes I'm biased and fail to see some main points. At this time I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the post. I just wanted to comment to the extent of my understanding of the said topic...

Cheers


[edit on 22-3-2006 by knowseek]

No worries mate...

So... are the 'inalieble rights of man' flexible depending on your view, or a standard the same for everyone (no matter how uncomfortable that may be)?

I simply reckon the latter...

Q

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Cute picture. Too bad the message on the sign is fake, though. It's like that other one, with hte GI and the Iraqi boy holding up a cardboard sign where you could add your own message...

Are you referring to the fact that these signs were all pre-written by the same extremist or that it is photoshopped or something? I am pretty sure that it was just one or two people handing them out for effect... althouth I think this whole thing was straying from the original point...

they are no argument against freedom of speech (was this what you're suggesting Riwka? I started this post so long ago I forget now), as I don;t think they are as threatening and ominous as people might think... I see nazi demos with 'White is right -kick them out- fight fight fight' placards, but the fabric of civil society hasn't been shorn apart... people have just spoken out and fought against these views... which is how it should be.. in the long termcivil society is stronger than the use of force/coercion in peaceful nations...

Q

Now if I had a sign at public markets promoting my T-Shirts with, "BEHEAD ALL ISLAMICS WHO INSULT HUMANITY WITH VIOLENCE", do you think I wouldn't suffer the law stepping in (even if they noticed the disclaimer in the irony) to 'protect us' from the fallout of 'delicate sensativities'.

As I've mentioned in another post, Islamics didn't just crawl out from some desert caves or tents, they have been doing deals and holding powerfull positions in the west since long before the 'crusades', so they only have themselves to blame for the understanding they claim the west lacks in reguard to their faith.

Also, I was tickled by that example of religious pressure leading to 'censorship', with the Christians it was protest, with the Islamics it was threats of violence.

It's no good telling the west not to fear or react to displays of, and calls to, violence, by telling us, "Oh, they're just a few radicals who don't represent us". For crying out loud, if they can't get their 'religion of peace' to motivate 'their brothers in faith', to 'be peacefull', then what the blue blazes do they have the right to tell the rest of the world how to perceive and speak about them.

Show us, the 'peace' you want to inflict on the rest of the world, then we may start to believe your, "Woe is us poor misunderstoods!" crocodile tears. Untill then expect alot of the world to continue to be insulted by your foot stomping, childish "demands".

Originally posted by Qoelet
No worries mate...

So... are the 'inalieble rights of man' flexible depending on your view, or a standard the same for everyone (no matter how uncomfortable that may be)?

I simply reckon the latter...

Q

Uhh – I don’t know why I find it so difficult to answer that question, but for the questions sake, let’s go with standard.

My rights as a human ends where another's begins…I have the right to own a firearm, but I don’t have the right to target practice on my neighbor. This mindset tends to work or at least becomes more easily understood with the tangible items in life, because they are black and white. My neighbor isn’t really given a choice for freedom in this hypothetical situation. An example of a grayer area might be: I have the right to an opinion and present this opinion to my neighbor (given we’re still on communicable terms after using him for target practice, hehe) It is my neighbor’s right and option to debate or to not listen to my banter. In the event he decides to not listen to my ideas and I continue to move upon HIS boundaries and press those ideas, I’m then stepping into his freedom and therefore it’s not acceptable. Concerning the cartoons (which were in poor taste, imo)… They were presented in a medium that gives choice to its viewers; one decides to look or they don’t. Now if an artist were to spray paint the cartoons on the house of a person who the artist KNEW would take offense to such material…that’s hate and infringing on ones freedom, thus very bad. Does someone have the right to carry a sign at a rally that calls for beheading? Sure, it’s an open forum in which a rally is taking place and that is a freedom of expressing anger. Such a sign hurts my very inner core as a human being and I actually cringe when I see it, but I don’t have the right to grab that person and forcefully remove the sign from his hands; now when such ideas as a beheading is acted out, that’s moving on another individuals freedom – freedom of life.

Originally posted by suzy ryan
Now if I had a sign at public markets promoting my T-Shirts with, "BEHEAD ALL ISLAMICS WHO INSULT HUMANITY WITH VIOLENCE", do you think I wouldn't suffer the law stepping in (even if they noticed the disclaimer in the irony) to 'protect us' from the fallout of 'delicate sensativities'.

As I've mentioned in another post, Islamics didn't just crawl out from some desert caves or tents, they have been doing deals and holding powerfull positions in the west since long before the 'crusades', so they only have themselves to blame for the understanding they claim the west lacks in reguard to their faith.

Also, I was tickled by that example of religious pressure leading to 'censorship', with the Christians it was protest, with the Islamics it was threats of violence.

It's no good telling the west not to fear or react to displays of, and calls to, violence, by telling us, "Oh, they're just a few radicals who don't represent us". For crying out loud, if they can't get their 'religion of peace' to motivate 'their brothers in faith', to 'be peacefull', then what the blue blazes do they have the right to tell the rest of the world how to perceive and speak about them.

Show us, the 'peace' you want to inflict on the rest of the world, then we may start to believe your, "Woe is us poor misunderstoods!" crocodile tears. Untill then expect alot of the world to continue to be insulted by your foot stomping, childish "demands".

Good point




Like this one, should this also apply to riot ?
As this was released in denmark on a t-shirt, it was reported to the police against blasfemy-law but the charges was dropped, like the muhammed drawings. ACCEPT IT !
1.400.000.000 kathlics didnt boycot, burning down buildings or making riots.
A citizens of USA got the right to sue everyone, carry a gun and the right to remain silent ( and to say:" god bless amerika")
Take theese rights away and any in this forum tell me there will not be any riot .... theese are the rights of any amerikan..
Praise the lord for freedom of speech. The drawings did bring us closer to a greater human civilization/rights
An old saying:" if You dont like the smell in the bakery, buy ur bread elsewhere!", the EU is a free demokratic union. Summer Sumarum buy ur bread elsewhere if your not happy nobody forces you to anything else.