I'm Not Giving Up My Free Speech Rights Because Some Cretin Made An Anti-Muslim Film

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Nor I am giving up my free speech rights because some 'artist' depicted Christ in a vial of urine or some comedian makes jokes about pedophile priests having sex with little boys.


The irony is if you applied the same standards to Democratic Underground that some at Democratic Underground want to apply to the cretin who made the cheesy anti-Muslim film Democratic Underground would be censured.


That's the problem with abridging freedom of speech. One man's free speech is another man's hate speech.

Something to think about.

[cali]

1. Agree.

and I can't say I think much of Andres Serrano either.

[Scootaloo]

2. Who's asking you to?

The irony is if you applied the same standards to Democratic Underground that some at Democratic Underground want to apply to the cretin who made the cheesy anti-Muslim film Democratic Underground would be censored.

Actually the irony is that the film qualifies as "hate" under DU rules, and posting it would get you censured at the very least.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. There Was A "Fuck Netanyahu" Thread Here The Other Day

If a bunch of crazed , right wing Jews attacked the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington DC should philosoraptor be prosecuted?

[Scootaloo]

8. Who's asking you to give up your first amendment rights, DSB?

Also, why are you defending a bigoted film so vigorously? Inquiring minds want to know.

[eqfan592]

12. Defending the rights of somebody to make a bigoted film...

...does not equate to defending the film itself. So you might want to dial that back a bit.

As for who is asking us to give it up, there's an entire thread dedicated to it here in GD.

[Scootaloo]

22. Except the rights are not in question

Never were. So this is a vigorous defense of... what, exactly? What, precisely, is spurring these same posters, over and over again, to slap themselves on the back for boldly defending something that doesn't need a bold defense?

And would they be doing the same if it were a remake of "Birth of a Nation," complete with blackface?

"By god, I will protect your absolute right to portray my fellow human beings as subhuman pieces of shit fit only for extermination because, good sir, I believe that your right to express your hatred vastly outweighs their desire to be depicted as human beings!"

THAT'S what all of these threads are screaming to the rooftops.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. The Right Are In Question

There are several threads where the authors are arguing for prosecution of the cretin who made the film.

And by saying a person doesn't have the capacity to see or hear something he or she doesn't like and ignore it is stripping that person of agency. In fact you are infantalizing him or her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. That Is The Most Absurd Rebuttal I Have Seen In My Fourteen Years Of Surfing The 'Internets'

Let me answer it this way.

Do an advanced search on the anti-pornography threads at DU and see who is one of the most passionate defenders of the First Amendment. I still have my dog eared copy of John Stuart Mills' On Liberty that was part of an introductory Political Theory course.

I am a First Amendment absolutist.

[Scootaloo]

23. Who is asking you to give up your first amendment rights, DSB?

I do hate repeating myself, especially now that I realize there will be no answer forthcoming.

[joeglow3]

62. Why do you care if the government taps all phone calls if you have nothing to hide

That is the exact logic you are employing right now.

[Confusious]

18. I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

Voltaire.

[Scootaloo]

25. Voltaire would presumably accept that disagreement is allowed

Instead of running around like a headless chicken, claiming his right to speech was being quashed when people disagreed with him... as DemocraticSinceBirth and many others are doing.

[Confusious]

31. Disagreement, yes

You seem to be calling everyone who doesn't agree with you "haters" or "bigots" or questioning their reasons for defending "freedom of speech."

That's not disagreement.

Ps. To use an old worn out, run over, wrung out, burned up phrase, freedom of speech is what this country was founded on.

Am I an absolutist? Within reason. And critizisms of religion fall within that catagory. The guy may have made a terrible video, that was designed to rile people up, but what about

Van gogh, who made a movie about Islams treatment of women? He died for that, and it was a fair critizism.

People got riled up about that to. Would it be OK not to have those critizisms?

What about the pedo scandal of the church? They could have just claimed blasphemy, or secrets of the church or some shit like that.

Or does it only apply to one religion, Islam?

[Scootaloo]

35. Because there is no violation to "defend" against.

Seriously, does this not clue in? The filmmaker is not facing charges or prosecution for making this film. For fraud, perhaps, for parole violation, very likely. But not for making this film.

My take is that the yelping about first amendment rights is a smokescreen for... something else. This is reinforced when I see some of the people making these posts, and remember back to some other shit they have posted. And then here comes the "how dare you disagree with someone's flaming hatred, it's his first amendment rights!" argument. Over. And over. And over again. Because apparently there's a right to express hatred, but not a right to denounce it, I suppose?

Maybe, just maybe you're right, and I'm just reading too much into another bout of DU'ers engaging in garbled and pointless self-congratulation. I'd like to think so, but I've been dealing with bigots online and off for too long to really think that's the case.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. Elaborate

This is reinforced when I see some of the people making these posts, and remember back to some other shit they have posted.



"Id like to think so, but I've been dealing with bigots online and off for too long to really think that's the case."

[Scootaloo]

46. Who is asking you to give up your first amendment rights?

You elaborate; I asked first

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. The People Who Are Suggesting The Anti-Muslim Film Maker Be Prosecuted

If I want to make a movie about some Old Testament characters having sex with their daughters or eighty year old married men having sex with their eighteen year old servants I should be able to make that movie free from prosecution.

Ditto for Catholic priests diddling ten year old boys though I would have to do it in a way that I don't run afoul of child pornography laws.

And ditto for a movie with Willard Romney having sex with with his dozen wives because Mormons believe there is polygamy in Heaven.

[joeglow3]

63. You may need to scan the threads here again.

I cannot count how many times people here have said he should be criminally charged for murder.

[Confusious]

74. I would like elaboration also

Are they bigoted about religion? There's a lot of VERY GOOD reasons not to like religions.

Are the bigoted about ethnicity? Muslims aren't just in the middle east, they're white, brown, yellow, red.

As far as denoucing it, you have every right. But that hasn't been the point of the discussions. I've seen a lot of posts where people think he should be charged with something, and get upset when you point out he violated no law, and his rights are protected by the first admendmemt.

Just because I don't say I'm for or against something each and every time I post doesn't mean I don't support it or I do support it.

[treestar]

33. No one should be prosecuted

though if you ran into Netanyahu and said that, and he took a swing at you, he'd be the one prosecuted. But you did take a chance that he'd punch you in the nose.

We have freedom of speech, we cannot be prosecuted for what we say but we can't control the behavior of others when they react. Maybe Netanyahu will say nothing. Maybe he'll just return the sentiment. Maybe he'll put out a gun and shoot you. He may pay the price. But you took your chance when you said what you said.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. DU Would Censure You And Appropriately So

That's why the 1st Amendment is so important. Because anybody can find speech they deem objectionable and argue for its prohibition as long as it isn't there.

[karynnj]

26. You may have a right to say everything you want, but you do not have a right

to propagate it IF IT AGAINST THE TOU.

Hate speech does violate DU rules and the rules are enforced by a random jury of the community here. From jury results that I have seen, I have disagreed with the verdict on both sides but overall think that it works very well. I have seen similar rules work well on Daily Kos.

You Tube said that the trailer did not violate their TOU. Asking if it did was a very valid thing for the administration to do - just as I don't think it wrong that I and others have alerted on things that were found to be ok by the juries. I also have been on juries that hid things I thoought were ok.

I know that other countries have stricter hate speech laws that came out of their own histories. I suspect that in a time where self publishing is extremely easy, it would be nearly impossible to actually stop not just the right to speak - even if hatefully - but to make that speech available internationally.

However, the right to condemn in the strongest terms anything you see as hate speech is not just acceptable or a privilege of your own freedom of speech, but a responsibility when staying quiet could lead to only the hate speakers being heard. That was exactly where the administration was and where I think the DU people were.

I have no problem with the administration saying that this film offends them. I see a problem that Mitt Romney objected to a perfectly normal statement by the Cairo embassy and the fact that there has NOT been much criticism of the film from the Republicans. Even GWB condemned similar stuff.

[gollygee]

5. Freedom of speech doesn't mean private groups are forced to give a forum for what you say

DU has the right to have any rules it wants. DU isn't the government.

[Scootaloo]

11. I just figured it was kind of strange...

trying to hold the standards of DUers about conversations on DU - which are supported by DU's own rules regarding bigotry - as being in violation of the first amendment.

haters gonna hate, I guess.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. The Point Is There Is Commentary On DU

The point is there is commentary on DU that others (non members) would see as hateful and inflammatory and want to censure. What part of that don't you understand?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

49. Unfortunately. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I disagree, as a standalone news item a link to it would/should be tolerated

While you clearly believe that muslims are more targeted here, I submit that recent behaviors generate such reactions. The picture here is one of the reasons why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=231385

[Scootaloo]

24. What, no rally to support his freedom of speech?

Or is that reserved for VIP's, PP?

...Oh wait, I forgot who I'm talking with, of course it's reserved.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. I have not said anything against his/her right to protest while carrying that sign

but we all, or at least most, recognize that actions have consequences.

Groups or individuals clearly affiliated with groups demanding the death penalty for those who offend their religion are not going to be well regarded by those of us who support free speech. The more they make such statements, the more it becomes clear to majority that while they are free to make such asinine statements, we are free to marginalize them. That is not bigotry

[Zalatix]

55. People are talking about prosecuting the film maker or extraditing him overseas.

That's a WORLD of difference from something as simple as being censured.

[Progressive dog]

6. I'm with you

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." While this might be an overstatement of liberal thought and probably was never actually said by Voltaire (to whom it was attributed), our freedom of speech rests on this ideal.

[ananda]

7. But it's OK for the police state..

.. to abuse and take away the freedoms of Occupy
protesters, of whistleblowers, and leakers like
Bradley Manning and Julian Assange.

I hate hypocrisy and double standards.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

52. That's not OK, either. The right to assemble and the right to information are just as important.

I would give up most of my privacy if it meant subjecting government and corporation to the same transparency.

[lamzydivy]

73. And send huge sums of money to nations that support the death penalty for homosexuality.

You get it, I think. Maybe.

[porphyrian]

9. We need to teach this to the new democracies in the world.

They are largely still in the "Spring Break" phase of their newfound freedoms and they still haven't figured out many of the things we now take for granted.

[Roselma]

10. Our Constitution's "freedom of speech" relates

to the GOVERNMENT curtailing speech, not toward a website doing it.

[Kindly Refrain]

13. Actually you give up your free speech everytime you post here

they have a TOS that you clicked off when you joined.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. DU Is A Private Entity

A bit different.

[Kindly Refrain]

20. There are several definitions of the notion of "free speech"

One is a legal definition, one is a societal definition, one is a literal definition.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. As A Legal Matter The Cretin Who Made The Film Should Be Left Alone Unless He Violated Other Laws

As a societal matter people of good will of all faiths should denounce him in the strongest terms imaginable.

As a literal matter the film is a joke.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Concur

though at this point the film should be left alone regardless. Its a published work at this point.

We can condemn him for his intent and poor production values, but neither are illegal

[karynnj]

17. DU already is self censored

If something as outrageous as the trailer for this possibly nonexistent movie were posted, there would be alerts and it is possible that it would be hidden.

Even the most extreme call for not allowing that garbage on the internet was a suggestion by the administration that YOU TUBE examine whether it violated their TOU - they did and said that it did not violate those terms.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute, nor has it ever meant a person saying outrageous things won't have a consequence. You can't call fire in a crowded theatre and there are libel and slander laws - in addition to the consequences of losing your own reputation. Here, the fact that the Copt made up a story of an Israeli Jew and Jewish backers suggests that he hoped that his name would not become known. Maybe because he knew that this film was despicable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. And some of us have an increasingly

Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Large sundry list of subjects that we won't discuss on this privately owned site. The bolded matters and I am sure you know why.

Suffice it to say the very real limits are part of it. Turning point, when Wikipedia trumps the U.S. Code.

I recomend some Nomex...what you said does not fit the bumper sticker mentality.

[99Forever]

27. Who exactly is asking you to...

... give up "YOUR free speech right?"

Specifically. Name names.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. I Was Speaking In A Global Sense And Yes There Have Been Calls For Restrictions On Free Speech

.

[99Forever]

66. I see...

... it is one of those "some people say" things. Got it, thanks

[treestar]

30. Freedom of speech is not the issue

That's a distraction. Of course you have a right to say almost anything, barring some time and manner restrictions or actual threats.

It's a matter of judgment. If someone's pointing a gun at you of course you have freedom to call him as asshole. But if you find yourself in that position, you may not elect to do so as a matter of judgment.

After the riots over the cartoons, etc., anyone who wants to make fun of Mohamed is free to do so but knows they are going to upset somebody to an extreme level. Something about our society or freedom makes us able to handle insults to Christ much better, apparently. It's a cultural thing we have trouble understanding.

But I see no reason to provoke Muslims on this, other than to provide "proof" they are inferior to us. That seems to be the whole point of doing these things.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. I Would Have Preferred The Film Not Be Made And Muslims Not Be Disrespected

I also would prefer that people not disrespect African Americans, Jews, gays, Catholics, Mormons, most Christians, et cetera.


You notice I left out Republicans. Maybe that's a function of my own hypocrisy but it shows how fraught with peril the whole notion of free speech is. The proverbial "you" is free to say anything derogatory about a group as long as it's a group I don't like.

[treestar]

68. I'm with you entirely

These things should not be illegal in any way due to freedom of speech, but it's OK to say that some people are going too far and just trying to provoke.

I also agree there are few things that would be unfairly said of Republicans. They do so much provoking themselves, yet act innocent and pretend-victims when the tables are turned on them!

[MH1]

42. That WAS the point.

And it seems that some Muslims are hell-bent on proving it.

The filmmaker has lawyered up, just in case, but his crime was in the way he duped the actors (assuming that really happened), NOT in creating a stupid, insulting movie.

No one would have known about this pile o' crap movie if it hadn't been advertised by people who have an interest in setting one group of people against another. And if one of those groups hadn't taken the bait.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Fraud 's Not Protected Speech Nor Should It Be

.

[MH1]

50. I agree, and I hope they get the filmmaker on that.

I think what he did is stupid and vile but that alone doesn't make it criminal.

And nothing justifies the violence against Americans who had nothing to do with it.

But if there's a crime here, the repercussions of the act should ensure that it is very diligently prosecuted.

I would hope, anyway.

[treestar]

69. A questions that is of interest

Some Muslims may prove it - are there any movies that would get us mad enough to react this way? Say DUers or Americans. There probably are, but we are insulated due to American military might. We don't have any actual fear of our detractors.

But being human, there may be something that could be said by someone out there that could enrage you enough to go and throw some rocks. We aren't in that situation and we don't know.

[kestrel91316]

36. IIRC, DU is private property and the admins can censor to their hearts' content.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Don't Think There Was Anything In My OP That Suggested Otherwise

I said DU itself would be censured if there were no 1st Amendment.

[Ikonoklast]

38. Your entire premise is made of straw.

Sorry, but it is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. That's A Declaration And Not An Argument

Sorry, but it was.

[Ikonoklast]

56. A statement of fact, why yes, it was.

Your premise is flawed and needs no further response in rebuttal, as many above have also noted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. "as many above have also noted."

Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.

[Ikonoklast]

61. Not when based on factual evidence.

A popular opinion is that daytime is usually brighter than nighttime.

It is also a fact.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. I Think You Are Comparing An Observation With A Fact

Hamburgers are tastier than frankfuters.(Opinion)
Eating a hamburger that has been left unrefrigerated for a week will make you ill. (Observation)

[Odin2005]

39. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x Infinity!

[MH1]

40. I agree, EXCEPT it appears that the filmmaker may have committed a crime

or at least some extremely unethical behavior that SHOULD be a crime, if it isn't.

Not merely for "insulting" someone's god-figure.

This is what I am referring to:

http://www.onthemedia.org/blogs/on-the-media/2012/sep/12/religious-references-innocence-muslims-dubbed/

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/anti-islam-film/index.html

If what they did isn't illegal, it should be.

And I do think they should be prosecuted for THAT to the fullest extent possible.

But I agree about the First Amendment and rule of law. There is no reason on this earth that people should get away with trying to justify violence because of someone else's sick ideas that they made the mistake (for the rest of us) in putting into film or print. I do think it's a "clash of civilizations" or at least fundamental concepts of civilization, when you have a group of people thinking it's a-ok to murder people based on an insult, and especially when the murdered ones are people who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the insult. That is a sick view of the world that we should not accept.

[progressivebydesign]

45. Many democrats need to get out of their own heads once in a while.

Live in the real world.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. I Live In The Second Largest And Most Diverse City In The United States

And use public transportation every day.

I defer to nobody in my exposure to the real world.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

47. K&R. There should never be any exceptions whatsoever to free speech.

Any effort to change that should be met with harsh resistance.

[Ikonoklast]

65. Nonsense.

If I advocate for the murder of my political opponent, I should be stooped from doing so.

[orpupilofnature57]

53. FIRE !!!!!!!!!

[frylock]

59. i'm not giving up my right to condemn bigoted shit lumps..

because of some people's skewed interpretatation of 1A.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

60. Is There Much Daylight Between "Cretin" And "Bigoted Shit Lump"?

.

[Yo_Mama]

72. But that's the point of the 1A

You have the right to condemn bad speech, and other people have the right to claim you are wrong, and everyone has the right to say what they believe.

The First Amendment gives no one the right to public approval of their speech, and no one the right to suppress criticism of a government, a public figure, a religion, or any philosophy or an idea. It only gives you the right to speak - not the right to public approval of that speech.

[Zoeisright]

67. Just don't deliberately incite violence.

That's really all you need to do.

[BarackTheVote]

70. This movie was made to create an international incident

It's not just that the movie was anti-Muslim... and it's not just that it was put online... it was also dubbed in Arabic to target a very specific group; and then, this Morris Sadek guy, the man behind the dub, sent the film to Egyptian journalists, guaranteeing that it would be seen--by the exact group that would be most outraged by its content! (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is-the-man-who-reportedly-translated-sent-the-anti-muhammad-film-to-egyptian-journalists/)

Okay... this isn't just a freedom of speech issue. In the US, we have protection, real, actual protection, preserving our physical safety when we exercise our freedom of speech. At least... ideally, we do. But we're talking about the intentional and strategic dissemination of hateful messages overseas, once again, to places that it will incite the most fury. The inevitable result is Americans being targeted.

As I've said in other threads, I don't think the protesters at the consulate were the instigators of the lethal violence, and some sources say the original protesters even tried to help the consulate staff when the militants began attacking. However, the makers of "Innocence of Muslims" and the person who, with full knowledge of the consequences, distributed it OVERSEAS (i.e., beyond the protectorate of the United States)--they are guilty of creating an international incident that humiliated the US and threatened its citizens across the face of the planet.

[Yo_Mama]

71. Strongly agree

Not only that, but for a lot of progressives to be wanting to destroy the single basic civil right that produced progressivism in the first place is kind of disturbing.