Freedom of Speech - An excuse to be Openly an Anti-Muslim

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Just go to this link for an example and take a look at the comments:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Any questions young grasshopper?

"young grasshopper"? Is that supposed to be an insult? Are you insulting me for asking you to provide links to back your OP??

In the link you provided above I read the first at least twenty comments and I could not find one that was hateful toward Muslims. Perhaps you could quote one for us? Being that that is your job as the OP you know, back your claims with something.

Not that I don't think you might find one or two out of the 900+ that would be hateful toward Muslims. There are plenty enough ignorant people in this world to accommodate all manner of hate speech.

What do you propose we to do about all this hate speech? What is your solution?

-Alien

Freedom of speech is just that " Freedom of Speech". I can & will use it any way I want. If you don't agree, then you need to use your freedom of speech and speak up. It is my right as an American, it's my right as an individual.

I can & will feel any way I want about any subject I wish. I can rant about it all I want. As Americans it's one of the few freedoms we have left. If you don't like what someone say's, don't listen. If you find it offensive, stay away from it. IMHO, if we all took the attitude of " You take care of you & your's & leave me & mine alone.

We would all be a little better off.

Originally posted by dadgad

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by dadgad

 

Free speech as someone above pointed out is only restricted to expressing anything that is withing the perimeters of the accepted norm.

Nope! Not at all! That is "political correctness"! "Political correctness" is the OPPOSITE of "free speech".

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point that out.

See ya,
Milt

Of course. You misread me.

Nope! I don't think so.

See ya,
Milt

Political correctness is a tool being used to silence individuals thoughts (and quite often it is a one sided street)

reply to post by BenReclused


Yeah, but the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a privately owned website. I'm truly okay with the decision of the staff. I'm just saying that it won't change my stance on this subject one iota.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


So you are saying that the photo I posted is acceptable? Explain how so? That photo is bigotry, imagine if there was a photo of a black person being lynched, would that be ok to you?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

So you are saying that the photo I posted is acceptable? Explain how so? That photo is bigotry, imagine if there was a photo of a black person being lynched, would that be ok to you?

Sure,it seems like the freedom to tell "freedom to go to hell",is in full swing.



I am sure you can find some justification in this,right?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
So you are saying that the photo I posted is acceptable? Explain how so? That photo is bigotry, imagine if there was a photo of a black person being lynched, would that be ok to you?

Haven't I made my position clear enough for you already? Let me make it crystal clear. YES!!!!! I think it's 911% acceptable. Get it? Now, until the admins figure out a way to install Crayon font, I have no idea how much more clear I can make it.

No, it's my OPINION that it's NOT bigotry. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's historical fact with a bit of satire. And, a black person being lynched isn't even comparable to this photo. I don't give to craps what your OPINION is on it. You can say your photo is bigotry all you want. You can say the moon is made of cheese too. I really don't care. You're the type of person that probably has no problem with Huck Finn being PC'd up because it had that ohhhhh, so bad "N-word" in it. Scary, freedom, isn't it?

Well,OP STILL hasn't brought up a clear analysis of both sides to his story.


SEE this is the freedom of Speech HE doesn't bring up,want to bring up,or even TALK about.

This is the other side of the coin............


Wheres his disgust ???

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

So you are saying that the photo I posted is acceptable? Explain how so? That photo is bigotry, imagine if there was a photo of a black person being lynched, would that be ok to you?

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Source

Hell... that definition certainly discribes the majority of Muslims that have been killing in the name of Allah!

Believe it or not, that also seems to discribe the majority of posters here on ATS... yourself included.

You want to know what I see on that bomb?:
I see just another damn bigot!

I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of us would find it acceptable if President George W. Bush was perched on it. Even I would!

OF COURSE freedom of expression is acceptable in the USA. Our Constitution guarantees that. That's all an effigy is: A damn expression!

Get over yourself. You sound like the ones that created it deserve jail time, or death, just because YOU don't like it.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by sonnny1


I don't understand how the OP can be so sensitive about an "expression", and then turn around and justify threats (such as shown in your last two posts) and the actions (as shown by his defense of the 9-11 attacks) of those that are so "dead set" on the killing of innocent "infidels".

Go figure...

See ya,
Milt

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by sonnny1

 

I don't understand how the OP can be so sensitive about an "expression", and then turn around and justify threats (such as shown in your last two posts) and the actions (as shown by his defense of the 9-11 attacks) of those that are so "dead set" on the killing of innocent "infidels".

Go figure...

See ya,
Milt

edit on 20-2-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo

It is because its not really freedom of speech the OP is getting at.

He hasn't responded to the MANY posts in this thread,that have asked him pertinent questions to his view of freedom of speech.

Hes ducked responding to me also.

Its clear from his original post,what his true intentions are.

To point a finger at ANYONE that says anything with a different viewpoint of Muslims,then a pro one. By using the freedom of speech route,he alienates himself from talking about the so called "bigotry" that only the West,Israel,or America shows towards Muslim people,all the while NEVER bringing up that its something Muslims do,all the time.

reply to post by sonnny1


I agree with ya! Damn... I loved that cartoon. It was definitely very fitting. I'm still laughing.

See ya buddy,
Milt

People have every right to be anti-Muslim, if they choose. People have every right to feel what they want and express what they want. It's true that political correctness and a very narrow sense of propriety limits what people can say and think, and the Muslims are oddly not protected by that. This indicates that whoever dictates what's correct and what's not is proudly inconsistent and puts forward these ideas of right and wrong for his own agenda, and apparently his agenda includes bashing Muslims. From a personal point of view (subject to change on a daily or hourly basis) Islam strikes me as all other religion- insane horse-$$$$, concocted to limit human beings and as a sort of invisible slavery. The one exception is Christianity (not the whole of it, but certain very specific elements) which I believe has an amazing ability to reform a person's life. I don't pretend to know your exact point of view, but I must say that any attempt to convert the West (white culture) to Islam will be met with hellish destruction and an abrupt lesson in how to respect other cultures.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Yup, it's sometimes a confusing and messy universe. At times even paradoxical. In order to defend MY free speech, I have to also defend free speech others would direct against me. In order to maintain people's right to speak, I also have to defend the right of people who speak against that right to do so.

People get confused horribly if I speak against the very thing I'm defending the rights of others to promote at the same time, but that's how it goes some times.

I suppose the neatest way to wrap it up is to defend their rights to say what they feel they need to, but offer counter arguments against their premise, rather than their person or their right to defend that premise.

In other words, I think we have to defend their right to say whatever they want, AND defend our own rights to, as you put it, "just say NO" to it. They have the right to speak it, we have the right to ignore or counter what they say. Their right to speak (and ours) doesn't include a right to be listened to - that would infringe our rights to ignore them, or theirs to ignore us.

The counter to speech is speech, and the counter to crossing the moat and storming the castle is somewhat more physical. I prefer not to be the one to escalate it to that level, but would be ready to meet it if they do so.

It's some time a strange, confusing, paradoxical world, and moderate doses of beer some times help...

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by nenothtu

 

also - and just for grins...

hate speech should be outlawed

see?

:-)

what a messy universe

Some times, the best counter against a thing is not to attempt to stamp it out, but rather to shine a bright light on it. In the harsh glare of the light, others can see it better for what it is. If we instead try to stamp it out, eradicate, or hide it, others will wonder at what we are hiding, and may wonder whether it is a good thing.

Forbidden fruit - the harder one tries to put it out of reach, the more valuable and desirable it becomes to some people. Sort of like the law of supply and demand. Scarcity breeds artificial value.

Instead of giving the impression that it may be a diamond, shine the light so that all can see it's only barnyard muck.

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Yeah, but the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to a privately owned website. I'm truly okay with the decision of the staff. I'm just saying that it won't change my stance on this subject one iota.

Exactly. The First Amendment applies ONLY to relations between the People and the Government, not between private people and private people. How we handle that as private individuals is entirely up to us. Provided that we don't do anything to infringe a right of the opposition, such as breaking their jaw, we can handle it in any way we find proper. We can either ignore it or counter it, or even erase it if it's written on our walls, rather than theirs.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

So you are saying that the photo I posted is acceptable? Explain how so? That photo is bigotry, imagine if there was a photo of a black person being lynched, would that be ok to you?

Are you referring to the "rocket jockey" photo? If so, WHY would that be "unacceptable"? Did it cut too close to the bone in your mind?

The ONLY reason to try and suppress something is if you absolutely can not counter it.

The ONLY way to suppress something is by appealing to a "higher authority", such as the law, to accomplish that suppression for you.

The ONLY result of that appeal is that you give up some of your own rights to that authority, and open the door wider for them to suppress other things, too.

Maybe things you are trying to promote. Remember this: if you beg them to suppress what you consider to be "anti-islamic", you also give them the right to supress "pro-islamic" things, too.

Suppression is suppression. The same hammer you use to drive a nail in the other guy's coffin can be used to seal yours, too.

reply to post by nenothtu

People get confused horribly if I speak against the very thing I'm defending the rights of others to promote at the same time, but that's how it goes some times.

That's it - right there

I'm not exactly the greatest contributor here at ATS - but since I've joined, if nothing else I've been a relentless cheerleader for freedom of speech

It's the nature of this beast to make sense and make no sense at the same time, and the only way to keep it honest is to argue both sides - because you can't have one without the other

We live in a country where we can really have at each other - we can say almost anything. It tips too far this way...someone will bring it back around. Our system and out rights exist on a kind of see saw - the wisdom of the crowd keeps it balanced

Take away freedom of speech and we have nothing - there are plenty of countries we could point to as examples of that. No matter how bad it gets here - so long as we can still say what we mean to say - things will work themselves out

I hate hate speech - it should really just go away :-)

But I'm not a child - it's part of the system and I can handle the uglies as well as anyone

I was about to launch into a whole 'incite to riot' argument - as an example of why there are some limits - and some rules - but I don't have it in me tonight

you'll have to imagine it - and your rebuttal

:-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I was about to launch into a whole 'incite to riot' argument - as an example of why there are some limits - and some rules - but I don't have it in me tonight

you'll have to imagine it - and your rebuttal

:-)

Incitement to riot is a good case. We have the right to incite riots, because nothing at all can be done about it until it has already been done. Therefore it is a "right", since it cannot be stopped until it's too late to stop it. Talk about your paradoxes!

Now AFTER that incitement, there are repercussions. Every action has a reaction. People may not like the reaction they get to inciting a riot, but it will come all the same in most cases. That's one of the laws of the universe - there are consequences to actions. Those consequences won't prevent the actions, but they will provide a solution - sometimes a fairly permanent one.

As an extreme example, people have a "right" to jump off of a cliff if they so choose. The laws of gravity, however, will insure that they exercise that right exactly one time.

Freedom comes at a price, and there are consequences for everything.