Religious tolerance trumps freedom of speech. The death of the 1st Amendment.

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw


Weren't you the one claiming it comes with responsibility in the Springer thread?
Aren't you contradicting yourself?

If you're going to utilise free speech, you better be willing to take responsibility for what you say.

Originally posted by beezzer

If you're going to utilise free speech, you better be willing to take responsibility for what you say.

You *complain* about losing freedom of speech in the face of religious tolerance, yet you *applauded* the censorship enforced by that announcement made by Springer?

Originally posted by CodyOutlaw

Originally posted by beezzer

If you're going to utilise free speech, you better be willing to take responsibility for what you say.

You *complain* about losing freedom of speech in the face of religious tolerance, yet you *applauded* the censorship enforced by that announcement made by Springer?

This is a private site.

Free speech, the 1st Amendment is in place so government cannot censor.

Apples/oranges

reply to post by beezzer


Oh, I see.
So you support corporate censorship but not governmental censorship (or in this case, just plain apologizing).
I think I understand where the goal posts get moved now.

Originally posted by buster2010
No your freedom of speech isn't what irks people. It's your inability to tell the difference between free speech and hate speech is what irks people.

Originally posted by buster2010
Tell that to people who have been sued for slander and liable.

Hiya buster,

Not sure if you are or aren't aware of it ... You may already be. I'm not sure. I can't tell by your posts.

In America hate speech is completely allowed therefore there is no difference between free and hate speech.

Defamation, as you say, is not. It requires proof that the person knew the information was false when they said it amongst other things, and can't be classified as an opinion. It's pretty complex. Also hate speech at work can get you or your employer in trouble. Out and about you could still say something like ... all Muslims are suicidal white hating [expletive] and so long as you weren't attempting to cause violence straight away I'm pretty sure it's allowed over there.

If you knew about it already, okay dokee. I'd write more but my understanding of it isn't perfect and it's a lot of reading.

Confusion is understandble tho. Most countries aren't like that.

reply to post by Pinke

In America hate speech is completely allowed therefore there is no difference between free and hate speech.

Pinke - just thought I'd add - it really is complicated:

United States The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

Incitement is a related doctrine, allowing the government to prohibit advocacy of unlawful actions if the advocacy is both intended to and likely to cause immediate breach of the peace. The modern standard was defined in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), where the Court reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader accused of advocating violence against racial minorities and the national government. The Ohio statute under which the conviction occurred was overturned as unconstitutional because "the mere abstract teaching of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action."[4] The difference between incitement and fighting words is subtle, focusing on the intent of the speaker. Inciting speech is characterized by the speaker's intent to make someone else the instrument of his or her unlawful will. Fighting words, by contrast, are intended to cause the hearer to react to the speaker.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even then - you need to be able to prove intent

Originally posted by Marid Audran
Blaming the youtube video is arrogant and condescending - it implies that Muslims are incapable of controlling themselves.

I think we should get rid of the "freedom of religion" and put all these religious fanatics into one big heap of trash,

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Yes, it's very complicated and often people try to theory craft it to fit their opinions.

'Fighting words' is very rarely used or enforced, and generally only applies to a narrow band of situations. People often make the mistake of thinking defamation and fighting words is quite a wide scope. I generally find the public often assume a lot of laws are used more regularly than they actually are.

It's like in my home country ... very few people are charged with hate crime. In fact, the first person charged was black yet you will still hear white persons reference it like it happens every week and only to white people.

I really wish these types of things were taught in high school because this week especially I've seen so many misunderstandings and I'm not even American!

reply to post by Pinke

'Fighting words' is very rarely used or enforced, and generally only applies to a narrow band of situations. People often make the mistake of thinking defamation and fighting words is quite a wide scope. I generally find the public often assume a lot of laws are used more regularly than they actually are.

I think that it's interesting that the law at least suggests that we (we) :-) understand there is a difference - and that language is not without power or consequence

It makes freedom of speech all the more beautiful because we acknowledge that it can cause great harm

and you're right - it doesn't get put to the test legally as often as we might think

I don't know where you're from Pinke - but you're not wrong - our school system could stand a little tinkering :-)

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by TDawgRex


I will always stand against those that think like that.

Agreed! I may not agree with what some say, but I'll defend their right to say it.

Is that not the complete opposite of what the op is about?

Personally, I think Free Speech and Religious Tolerance co-exist and compliment each other as much as not. It's what makes our nation as great as it is for the system we've had most of it's history. The little hate-mongers who paraded in Skokie didn't add much to membership or image for the American Nazi movement. In fact, any who were on the fence or curious before that likely became pretty hard against, as it should be. Free Speech works...even when and especially for hate speech.

As for the video, well it showed me we have some really stupid and uneducated people running around with some thoughts they understand Islam as a World Religion of over a billion people. That's important to know...and so here again, free speech served a purpose. A form of Bubba, exposed!

Now why did it take 6 months of being out there for someone to care, eh?

There * ARE * laws regulating free speech though and that occurred to me reading down the thread. As I came to realize in a different way on a recent thread, there absolutely are laws regulating it...and those are also necessary and work well. They are, of course, CIVIL laws.

Criminal law is what the 1st amendment deals with and how Government may pass NO Law....which is why this r0dent can make his trashy little movie to run down Islam and it's as much free speech as the most beautiful Opera or Political Speech ever given. Rights don't differentiate.

.....Egypt or the whole Muslim World if they choose, can also sue this guy into oblivion and so broke that he'll be in homeless shelters watching his Social Security checks get taken to pay damages in his old age.

Wow- being offended is really in vogue this year...



I say - people think differently, until they take some action other than expressing a thought be that in print, video or in an oral statement that is a direct assault on the religion in question like say killing an Ambassador or burning an Embassy there is not much to really be "offended" about. Certainly there is no reason to start launching rockets and burning flags.

People have ideas known as thoughts and are free to express them even if they differ from those of others or "offend" a group or individual.

Put on your big girl panties Islam and get over it. Islam, the religion peace and whiners! That and killers, rapists, pedophiles and the ever popular vandals.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Decry the violence. Check!
State that the video sucks. Check!
Defend their rights to be offensive. *crickets*

You're getting crickets because people know words lead to wars. For everyone who thinks it is their god given right to offend anyone within proximity because they disagree, is a bully with no self-control. Insults are for playgrounds.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I can agree that we can dismiss the film. But when there ISN'T a caveat to hold dear, the 1st Amendment, then I worry about it.

I use OWS and Westboro as examples.

Bad examples as those were US issues...not Middle East. Why the ef, amidst riots, should we appeal to the rioters appreciation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.....that is some ignorance. You want us to talk to rural Yemen and Pakistan about the 1st Amendment of the US constitution???

Why don't we just let them know we thought the film was trash too? And save the civics lessons for a time when they are not rioting???

DUMB Rhetoric these days...you are sharper than this beez..

Why should we give a damn WHAT another country says or does? To have another country dictate to us our own freedoms is appaling!

We do not live in a bubble. There are Americans in other countries--we do not want to incite violence against them.

I can't believe that anybody is ignorant enough to actually believe that trying to calm the violence against innocent people is a bad idea.

It's not surprising though--this is just par for the course from the regulars here on ATS. Standard Operating Procedure.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by buster2010
No your freedom of speech isn't what irks people. It's your inability to tell the difference between free speech and hate speech is what irks people.

Originally posted by buster2010
Tell that to people who have been sued for slander and liable.

Hiya buster,

Not sure if you are or aren't aware of it ... You may already be. I'm not sure. I can't tell by your posts.

In America hate speech is completely allowed therefore there is no difference between free and hate speech.

Defamation, as you say, is not. It requires proof that the person knew the information was false when they said it amongst other things, and can't be classified as an opinion. It's pretty complex. Also hate speech at work can get you or your employer in trouble. Out and about you could still say something like ... all Muslims are suicidal white hating [expletive] and so long as you weren't attempting to cause violence straight away I'm pretty sure it's allowed over there.

If you knew about it already, okay dokee. I'd write more but my understanding of it isn't perfect and it's a lot of reading.

Confusion is understandable tho. Most countries aren't like that.

This country is what matters here not other countries. Also the lawsuit filed by the woman that was in the video and the poorly dubbed audio shows it was made to get a hateful reaction out of Muslims. That violates any claim to free speech. Kind of funny how everyone is crying about how our free speech is being taken away but said nothing about the rights to free speech has been stripped away from citizens a campus in California where it is now illegal to criticize Israel.

I already posted about this... meh

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by icepack
reply to post by beezzer

 

you reckon the video was just a opinion ? are you naive ?

It was obviously someones opinion. What they created was offensive to muslims.

So was "religisosity" starring Bill Mahr (but he's a liberal)
So is "Zero Dark Thirty" the film about the actions surrounding the death of Osamma Bin Ladin. (but it makes Obama look tough, so it's okay)

offensive??? how the muslims treat their own people and others is what is offensive to the rest of the world...why do the people in their own country put up with the violence directly associated with the islamic religion, and then have the balls to call it a peaceful religion. these people make fools of themselves by their actions, not by their belief.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

It was especially important for Obama and Hillary to make very clear that the views in the video were not the views of the U.S. government. It was also important for them to denounce the violence. They did both, and I'm glad they did. They couldn't have handled it better IMHO.

You're right, they couldn't have. That's part of the problem with allowing them to have power. They can't handle it.

The difference is if I want to be a racist and hate someone because of the color of their skin, I have every right in America to do so and express my belief. I do not have a right to call for violence or in any way incite a riot against a certain group. What this video did was incite a riot by creating a video they KNEW would cause an uproar. This is not some random guy in his basement making a youtube video because he thought it was funny. This is a group of people that hate Muslims and created this video with no other intention than to create a violent reaction. It is legal to hate in America. It is not legal to incite violence.

Mocking as an emotional response causes no harm. Mere words cannot kill. But without Freedom of Speech, much harm will come.

Are humans so perfect that they cannot be mocked? In truth, mocking is only a form of criticism, abiet a negative one, but still a criticism, so that one can look at the mirror and see why they had been mocked, and then if there is just cause, to correct errors to progress, and if not, to clear misconceptions to progress.

Thus, mocking does not harm, but is beneficial in way.

However, if the freedom of speech is removed from mankind, then who will be allowed to help change a leader or a society's error so that it may progress?

Often, evil sought to hide under the guise of righteousness, and brook no arguments or criticisms. As a result, the noble initial intentions rot away and regresion begins.

Can we throw rocks at God, who is nothing and yet EVERYTHING? Who can mock Him, who is nowhere but EVERYWHERE? He only laughs at our pathetic juvenile attempts, so long as the mockers do not hurt or harm His creations.

Who are divine messengers, but humans in flesh, and not God Himself? Would they care about being mocked or care more that their messenges get through by all means? They don't bother with criticisms, even welcomed them so that there lay the opportunities to clear misconceptions and misunderstandings.

Only evil hates and fear criticisms, and will murder even to ensure critics die, so that evil can reign. Thus may mankind be wary when freedom to speak up and speak out is taken away, regardless if under any political, monarchial or theocratic doctrines.

But also be aware that freedom is a power and power comes with responsibilities to others around us for no man is an island. Criticism can be done diplomatically if the other side is civilised and willing for discourse. If not, often a harsher tone would be adopted such as protests. But utter stupidity will be laughed at and ignored, and murder avoided at all costs.