Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 03:47 AM Sep 2012

At U.N., Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Muslim leaders were in unison at the United Nations this week arguing that the West was hiding behind its defense of freedom of speech and ignoring cultural sensitivities in the aftermath of anti-Islam slurs that have raised fears of a widening East-West cultural divide.

A video made in California depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a fool sparked the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies in many Islamic countries and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan this month. The crisis deepened when a French magazine published caricatures of the Prophet.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy," he told the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Friday.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88R1JI20120929?irpc=932

138 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
At U.N., Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech (Original Post) dkf Sep 2012 OP
bullies and thugs of islam (and other religions) are afraid of free speech nt msongs Sep 2012 #1
thanks for the concern, i think i will stick with free speech all the same. loli phabay Sep 2012 #2
This alas is an unbridgeable gulf. cali Sep 2012 #3
Perhaps it's the Muslim leaders who are hiding behind "cultural sensitivities" Recovered Repug Sep 2012 #4
You hit the nail right on the friggin head. (nt) eqfan592 Sep 2012 #24
You may be right.nt zellie Sep 2012 #25
You are right + LOL rock Sep 2012 #35
Middle eastern Islamic nations are at the forefront of suppression of freedom. Dawson Leery Sep 2012 #38
Unless you are a male muslim, you have no rights. Quantess Sep 2012 #50
Exactly!!! n/t RKP5637 Sep 2012 #51
Precisely. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #79
Well, historically the muslim world was more tolerant than the christian one.. X_Digger Oct 2012 #116
Sorry, but we see too many exiled Christians and Jews from Muslim countries in LA. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #117
I think you missed the point.. X_Digger Oct 2012 #121
Lets keep it within a 500 year span please Missycim Oct 2012 #125
But the Jews have been the victims always -- whether the persecution was by Muslims or by Christians JDPriestly Oct 2012 #132
Bingo! nt hifiguy Oct 2012 #97
+1 NCTraveler Oct 2012 #128
Democracy and free speech are popular in the Middle East, but most draw a line pampango Sep 2012 #5
Except many seem to think critical cartoons are "hate speech" Bucky Oct 2012 #114
Do they really think they will get anywhere with this argument? davidn3600 Sep 2012 #6
It's a good argument, long overdue. bemildred Sep 2012 #7
Hate speech is not banned in the United States, nor should it be davidn3600 Sep 2012 #8
huh? where did you get the idea that the U.S. prohibits hate speech? cali Sep 2012 #9
The usual American narcissism I see: bemildred Sep 2012 #10
It is not confused in America hack89 Sep 2012 #11
Please the subject line see post #10. I was not talking in particular about the USA. bemildred Sep 2012 #12
please see this in your post #7: cali Sep 2012 #15
Right, and you assume I must mean the USA, despite the fact that bemildred Sep 2012 #17
yes, I assumed that the "we" was referencing the U.S. cali Sep 2012 #19
It is precisely because Europe has such laws that they must be the referent of the speakers. bemildred Sep 2012 #21
"you underestimate Mr. Morsi at your peril, he is no loudmouth lightweight" Nuclear Unicorn Sep 2012 #31
Blatant backpedaling is deeply offensive to the Deity I believe in. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #93
Heh. bemildred Oct 2012 #95
Hey, at least you admit it. Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #108
Yep, this is really important, isn't it? bemildred Oct 2012 #109
In turn shall they be required to change Sharia law to respect other religions? hack89 Sep 2012 #16
Absolutely, they should respect other religions, why would you expect an exception for them? bemildred Sep 2012 #18
As long as the Constitution is respected hack89 Sep 2012 #20
+1. nt bemildred Sep 2012 #23
We are also free to bash Christians, especially evangelicals dkf Sep 2012 #28
Bashing is very popular all around. bemildred Sep 2012 #29
How's about bashing most major religions for their attitudes towards homosexuality? dkf Sep 2012 #30
Are we bashing the practices or the religions? bemildred Sep 2012 #33
Good grief how long have you been around here? dkf Sep 2012 #36
A while. nt bemildred Sep 2012 #37
Yeah I know I was being facetious. My bad. dkf Sep 2012 #39
Perhaps if you were more explicit about what's on your mind? bemildred Sep 2012 #42
By bashing, you mean criticizing, right? Ideas NEED to be criticized, and religion is just an idea. cleanhippie Oct 2012 #102
Something tells me you don't like religion much. That's not an argument I want the other side of. bemildred Oct 2012 #110
The problem is you equate "bashing", "criticizing", "blasphemy" etc. with infringement... Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #118
The point is it's none of your business unless they are violating somebodies rights, bemildred Oct 2012 #123
Shouldn't I determine whether its my business or not? Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #134
That would depend on what "it" is, wouldn't it? And that would be your opinion, wouldn't it? bemildred Oct 2012 #137
The subject line in post #10 says "The usual AMERICAN narcissism I see..." cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #45
Very observant. nt bemildred Sep 2012 #46
Trust me. Many Muslims bash Christianity too. They won't admit it, but they feel their religion JDPriestly Oct 2012 #81
Yes. nt bemildred Oct 2012 #96
lol. Sorry, it's not even remotely a confused area of the law. cali Sep 2012 #14
"There's plenty of hate in the media in Arab and Muslim majority countries"?? zellie Sep 2012 #13
Hate speech is directed at people, not beliefs... Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #74
THANK YOU! Behind the Aegis Oct 2012 #75
I agree. (Although that boundary is not always sharp, and people will mix the two.) bemildred Oct 2012 #99
People don't have a right to not be offended, and relying on intent is foolhardy... Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #120
"People don't have a right to not be offended"? bemildred Oct 2012 #122
Yes I'm sure, why free speech is so difficult a concept for you to grasp I will never understand. Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #135
Do people have a right to not be offended or not? bemildred Oct 2012 #138
But not in the US glacierbay Oct 2012 #130
Actually you are right, I used a thoughtless example... Humanist_Activist Oct 2012 #133
No problem. nt. glacierbay Oct 2012 #136
If they ally with out local Christian extremists... I'm not so sure anymore. 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2012 #22
Well they are behind us on that treestar Sep 2012 #26
In the US hate speech is protected, Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #27
Good answer cpwm17 Sep 2012 #41
Umm we kill you with a predator drone if you're involved with Al Qaeda Hippo_Tron Sep 2012 #64
So talking about AQ is enough to kill them? Arctic Dave Sep 2012 #65
Umm who's been killed for merely talking about Al Qaeda? Hippo_Tron Oct 2012 #111
Being at the "wrong" wedding is reason enough for us to kill them. Vidar Oct 2012 #119
Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of Democracy. Quantess Sep 2012 #32
Shock and Awe cpwm17 Sep 2012 #43
Excellent point, so eloquent. Quantess Sep 2012 #44
One of the major war crimes of the last century, and that's saying something. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #56
The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up... Odin2005 Sep 2012 #34
+1,000,000 n/t SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #40
Muslims get offended about as much as Republicans do. Bake Oct 2012 #107
How many Republicans Missycim Oct 2012 #126
We can't be having any of that free speech stuff. Rex Sep 2012 #47
I'll side with freedom of speech over butthurt religious zealots rollin74 Sep 2012 #48
This Turkish foreign minister is an Islamist jackass jsr Sep 2012 #49
Well I guess we need to kill more of them. SomethingFishy Sep 2012 #52
"Islamophobia"? Nope. Not afraid. Fuck them and their bullying censorship. Edweird Sep 2012 #53
Meanwhile, the Western World questions Muslimn world's treatment of women. (Mine does, anyway.) WinkyDink Sep 2012 #54
So, after seeing these threads every day for two weeks now, I have one question. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #55
David Irving has published around 30 books oberliner Sep 2012 #58
I'm glad you showed up, Oberliner. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #60
id say that if he was covered by the 1st amendment then he could as long as he didnt advocate violen loli phabay Oct 2012 #85
Again, we're talking about the UN, not the United States. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #87
lol i got a feeling that this is a set up, as i said he can say what he likes but i think hes a nut loli phabay Oct 2012 #88
Post removed Post removed Oct 2012 #91
lol where did you get i want to murder thousands of iranians loli phabay Oct 2012 #92
Has Irving been tried in the USA? NutmegYankee Sep 2012 #59
Are you paying any attention at all? Scootaloo Sep 2012 #61
And obviously it is. NutmegYankee Sep 2012 #62
Nothing personal, but I don't buy that line. Scootaloo Sep 2012 #63
Yet another case of your not seeing it because you can't or won't? Behind the Aegis Sep 2012 #66
The problem is, there is no "battle," Aegis Scootaloo Oct 2012 #72
But there is a battle, Scootaloo. Behind the Aegis Oct 2012 #73
No, it's not a battle. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #76
You claim to be fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry, but you aren't. Behind the Aegis Oct 2012 #78
You're right. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #80
i think the video is not about dehumanizing people its taking the piss out of their religion loli phabay Oct 2012 #86
See, if it were JUST "lol Mohammed was a dingbat" or something, I'd agree Scootaloo Oct 2012 #89
and you know i probuably wouldnt like his movie and think hes a prick, but im not going to shut him loli phabay Oct 2012 #90
Denial cthulu2016 Oct 2012 #71
Show me. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #77
My right to free speech guarantees that I can criticize homophobes, Holocaust deniers, racists, JDPriestly Oct 2012 #82
You have the right, but apparently not the inclination. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #83
I have criticized and generously. That's what is right to do. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #94
Probably has a lot to do with the fact that Mr. Irving doesn't kill people. NutmegYankee Oct 2012 #112
You don't seem to get it. Saying I support the First Amendment is a blanket statement. cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #67
Wonderful for you. Scootaloo Oct 2012 #70
I know you can't post in this thread any more MNBrewer Oct 2012 #100
Anyone should have a right to deny the holocaust cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #68
You make a good point, cthulu2016. JDPriestly Oct 2012 #84
When they allow women to drive cars alone, vote, talk to strange men and own their own businesses Vincardog Sep 2012 #57
Should we give you a call? "Get back to [you]"? closeupready Oct 2012 #105
They are expressing desired actions to be taken by MY sovereign Government Please do get back to me Vincardog Oct 2012 #106
Speaking of offending religious sensitivities... It's Blasphemy Day! backscatter712 Sep 2012 #69
I had a great Blasphemy day! MNBrewer Oct 2012 #101
Christ on a cracker! I love Blasphemy Day! n/t backscatter712 Oct 2012 #103
Are we also allowed to mock Muhammad? Because he was a pedophile. WinkyDink Oct 2012 #124
I see no problem with it! backscatter712 Oct 2012 #131
They can question it StarlightGold Oct 2012 #98
K&R - this thread has generated a lot of valuable speech. closeupready Oct 2012 #104
I don't think I'll be taking a lecture on ethnic hatred from Islamic fundamentalists today. Bucky Oct 2012 #113
I have one thing to say to them. Zalatix Oct 2012 #115
"I don't like what he says, but I defend his right to say it". Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #127
"Freedom does not mean anarchy" NCTraveler Oct 2012 #129

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)
38. Middle eastern Islamic nations are at the forefront of suppression of freedom.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:24 PM
Sep 2012

Unless you are a Muslim, you have no rights.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
50. Unless you are a male muslim, you have no rights.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:25 PM
Sep 2012

And even in that case, it seems like life is cheap. It's all about the afterlife.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
79. Precisely.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:54 AM
Oct 2012

When Muslims accept Christians without rioting in front of churches, banning Bibles and punishing those who convert from Muslim to Christian, then maybe we can discuss how free speech actually supports the freedom of religion.

The only reason that oddball made the movie about the Muslim religion was that he knew it would anger Muslims. If you don't parade your excessive sensitivity about religion, if you don't think of it as proof of your virtue but rather as proof of your own prejudice against the religious beliefs of others, then "insulting" movies will not bother you that much.

The Muslim world has lived in relative isolation when it comes to contact with people of other faiths. The West has had a slightly longer time to get used to the fact that not everyone is Christian or Catholic or Protestant or a believer in one of our traditional religions.

The Muslims will get used to it. Give them time.

We criticize American exceptionalism. Well, Muslim exceptionalism is just as big a mistake.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
116. Well, historically the muslim world was more tolerant than the christian one..
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:45 PM
Oct 2012

I would much rather have been a Christian in Baghdad than a Muslim in Wales in 1218.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Funny how things change.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
117. Sorry, but we see too many exiled Christians and Jews from Muslim countries in LA.
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:27 AM
Oct 2012

And I even saw them in France as early as in the 1960s.

I disagree with what you are saying. Ask a Coptic Christian in Egypt how safe he feels.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
121. I think you missed the point..
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 07:50 AM
Oct 2012

Back in history, say pre-1600 AD, the roles were reversed. It was christianity that was killing people for non-conformity.

But yes, that changed.

 

Missycim

(950 posts)
125. Lets keep it within a 500 year span please
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:33 AM
Oct 2012

lol I am sure Christians were bad over a 1000 years ago.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
132. But the Jews have been the victims always -- whether the persecution was by Muslims or by Christians
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 11:56 AM
Oct 2012

That is the fact that anti-semitic, anti-Jewish people who are in denial even about their own anti-semitism and anti-Jewishism refuse to acknowledge.

People who are anti-Jewish always deny it, always. It's the nature of the beast. People who are anti-Jewish are offended by people who insist on being true to themselves and different.

Native Americans are similarly told to assimilate or else. It's the same game.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
5. Democracy and free speech are popular in the Middle East, but most draw a line
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:28 AM
Sep 2012

between free speech and hate speech (or speech that incites violence) in a different place than most Americans would.

From Pew polling in several Middle Eastern countries:





http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/

Bucky

(53,511 posts)
114. Except many seem to think critical cartoons are "hate speech"
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:40 PM
Oct 2012

I won't defend the bigoted film (I still haven't seen it), but the attitude that they can be in favor of free speech except for the speech they're offended by is pretty laughable.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
6. Do they really think they will get anywhere with this argument?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:40 AM
Sep 2012

They can whine and riot all they want. The first amendment will not change.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
7. It's a good argument, long overdue.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:52 AM
Sep 2012

We prohibit "hate speech", it's going to be a hard sell that hate only occurs on one side.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
8. Hate speech is not banned in the United States, nor should it be
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:17 AM
Sep 2012

What gives a government the right to control what we say or what we think?

Are we going to start banning every type of speech because someone's feelings are hurt? We will have nothing left of the first amendment if we do that.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
9. huh? where did you get the idea that the U.S. prohibits hate speech?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:24 AM
Sep 2012

n the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

As for hate occurring only on one side, that's absurd. There's plenty of hate in the media in Arab and Muslim majority countries.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
11. It is not confused in America
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:53 AM
Sep 2012

from your link:

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
12. Please the subject line see post #10. I was not talking in particular about the USA.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:58 AM
Sep 2012

Neither are the speakers mentioned at the UN. They are talking about how free we in "the West" feel to bash muslims just because they are muslims, and it is a big problem. They are not going to give much credence to our concerns unless we clean up our act too.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
17. Right, and you assume I must mean the USA, despite the fact that
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:13 AM
Sep 2012

the mentioned speakers clearly do not, they talk about "the West", there is no explicit mention of the US in the OP.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
19. yes, I assumed that the "we" was referencing the U.S.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:16 AM
Sep 2012

Why would you reference Europe, for example, when many countries there do have laws against hate speech?

In any case, you hardly made it clear what you were referencing, and as I noted it makes little sense to reference "the west".

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
21. It is precisely because Europe has such laws that they must be the referent of the speakers.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:22 AM
Sep 2012

Or mine.

Unless you assume the speakers are ignorant or dumb.

I can tell you right now that you underestimate Mr. Morsi at your peril, he is no loudmouth lightweight like Ahmadinejad.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
93. Blatant backpedaling is deeply offensive to the Deity I believe in.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 03:16 AM
Oct 2012

You are blaspheming, and as such I want you immediately arrested under these myriad "hate speech" laws you were insistent the US has...

... until you were shown to be utterly, completely and wholly wrong.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
95. Heh.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:01 AM
Oct 2012

I prefer to think of it a breaking out into the larger world outside, being less provincial.

But yes, pummel me with those non-existent laws, beat me around the head and shoulders, forty lashes with the cat. Yes! Yes! I've been wrong, wrong, wrong, all my life, and FINALLY it's caught up with me and it's just too late.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
108. Hey, at least you admit it.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:18 PM
Oct 2012

That puts you in the cream of the DU crop, in my book.

A lot of people here would sooner gnaw off their own feet than say "okay, I was wrong". So, cool.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
16. In turn shall they be required to change Sharia law to respect other religions?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:09 AM
Sep 2012

in many Muslim states being a christian is a crime - why is that acceptable?

It is pure rank hypocrisy on their part. If they want respect for their religion then they can be a example and respect other religions.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
18. Absolutely, they should respect other religions, why would you expect an exception for them?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:16 AM
Sep 2012

We need to make that case to them too. We have a good argument too. Let's talk it out.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
28. We are also free to bash Christians, especially evangelicals
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:20 AM
Sep 2012

and those who don't believe in dinosaurs.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
29. Bashing is very popular all around.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:25 AM
Sep 2012

I slip into it myself easily enough. People like to vent. But it's still usually a bad idea.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
30. How's about bashing most major religions for their attitudes towards homosexuality?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:31 AM
Sep 2012

Or their attitudes towards women?

Burkas, no schooling, not being able for a woman or man to touch if they aren't married (some Orthodox Judaism), keeping women out of the areas designated for men, religions are rife with sexism and anti-homosexuality.

Is it a bad idea to bash those practices?

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
33. Are we bashing the practices or the religions?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:55 AM
Sep 2012

Practices, by all means. Religions as such, not a good idea.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
42. Perhaps if you were more explicit about what's on your mind?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:35 PM
Sep 2012

I'm grabbing at straws here. I have the feeling that we are not talking about the same things, but no idea why.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
102. By bashing, you mean criticizing, right? Ideas NEED to be criticized, and religion is just an idea.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:26 AM
Oct 2012

And bad ideas get bashed.

Religion should get no special protection from criticism, wouldn't you agree? If not, why?

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
110. Something tells me you don't like religion much. That's not an argument I want the other side of.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:40 PM
Oct 2012

However, I will say that I think the issue is more complicated than the way you lay it out. I think freedom of religion is a good thing, an important human right, even though I'm not religious myself, and I'm not willing to infringe it casually or simply because for one reason or another I think they are wrong. Generally I'm willing to interfere with religion when in infringes other important human and political rights, and not otherwise.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
118. The problem is you equate "bashing", "criticizing", "blasphemy" etc. with infringement...
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:43 AM
Oct 2012

no religion, no idea, is above being bashed, they do not, nor should they be afforded any protection from criticism, no matter how distasteful. No infringement of religious freedom is taking place here.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
123. The point is it's none of your business unless they are violating somebodies rights,
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:11 AM
Oct 2012

or breaking the law.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
134. Shouldn't I determine whether its my business or not?
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:44 AM
Oct 2012

I'm going to start to openly bash your opinions on this subject because it violates somebodies rights, mine. Really, what a vile opinion it is, why are you on a board that values democracy and free speech when you believe in neither?

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
137. That would depend on what "it" is, wouldn't it? And that would be your opinion, wouldn't it?
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:16 AM
Oct 2012

Some things are your business and some things are not. Or do you consider that anything is your business, and that all of your business is everybodies elses business too.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
81. Trust me. Many Muslims bash Christianity too. They won't admit it, but they feel their religion
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:05 AM
Oct 2012

is quite superior.

Many Muslims brag about praying 5 times a day. In many very religious Christian homes, families pray when they get up, when they go to bed and before each meal. Count that. It's 5 times a day. Nothing all that special about the Muslim 5-times-a-day prayer except that they do them in public and loudly. In America, people do them quietly, at home, alone or with their families.

Let's all try to learn about the religions of other people. It increases understanding and appreciation. There are overly proud people in all religions -- the ones that think they have all the answers.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
14. lol. Sorry, it's not even remotely a confused area of the law.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:06 AM
Sep 2012

that article is about hate speech in general. Scroll down and you can read what I posted from the article which is about hate speech in the U.S. That is what we are talking about. You made an erroneous claim. Now, I realize that you pride yourself on being right, but in this instance, you're simply not. There is NO legal prohibition on hate speech in the U.S. beyond the exceptions noted in the article. And under the 1st Amendment it's virtually impossible to make such speech illegal. It won't happen under a Conservative Supreme Court. It won't happen under a liberal one. And the 1st Amendment is certainly in no danger of being changed.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm

 

zellie

(437 posts)
13. "There's plenty of hate in the media in Arab and Muslim majority countries"??
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:58 AM
Sep 2012

I guess being a victim will do that to you.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
74. Hate speech is directed at people, not beliefs...
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:53 AM
Oct 2012

If someone says that all Muslims should be deported from their respective country, that would be illegal under most jurisdictions with hate speech legislation. But saying that the Prophet Mohammad was a pedophile, or that Islam is misogynistic, isn't hate speech.

Behind the Aegis

(53,651 posts)
75. THANK YOU!
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:59 AM
Oct 2012

It is really the basic concept of discussing ideas, not people. Religions, ALL religions, are nothing more than ideas, similar to capitalism, Marxism, or even something as mundane as extreme couponing. The line gets crossed when the adherents are "attacked" or otherwise maligned.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
99. I agree. (Although that boundary is not always sharp, and people will mix the two.)
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:13 AM
Oct 2012

I tend to rely on intent when I can determine it. It's an insult because it is intended as an insult, or that makes it more of an insult than an un-intended one. But then also, are we attacking people or ideas, and are we clear about it, that is a very important part of "hate speech".

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
120. People don't have a right to not be offended, and relying on intent is foolhardy...
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 02:46 AM
Oct 2012

who cares about intent except when a crime takes place? Why should that be a determining factor in determining what is free speech? We already have it going too far in Europe, we don't need to import these problems to the United States.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
122. "People don't have a right to not be offended"?
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:09 AM
Oct 2012

Are you sure? If you really want to assert that, I am done talking to you.

I'm saying you need both, intention is definitely part of it.

The EU is not so much going too far as thinking in a muddled and simple minded way about the problem. It is not a simple problem.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
138. Do people have a right to not be offended or not?
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:19 AM
Oct 2012

Do you think you can tell people how they are supposed to feel? Just sort of order them to feel the way you choose?

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
130. But not in the US
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:17 AM
Oct 2012

saying all Muslins should be deported from their respective country, while a vile statement, is protected under the 1st Amendment in the US.

 

Humanist_Activist

(7,670 posts)
133. Actually you are right, I used a thoughtless example...
Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:41 AM
Oct 2012

my only excuse is that it was late at night and I was tired. Should have used an example that leads to immediate danger, such as inciting a crowd to burn down a mosque, or some other example.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
26. Well they are behind us on that
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:25 AM
Sep 2012

They ought to learn about it themselves, and look at the problems lack of it causes. And take a chill pill. There are many irreligious people in the world and they'll have to adjust to that in the modern world.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
27. In the US hate speech is protected,
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:03 AM
Sep 2012

in the Middle East we kill you with a predator drone if we don't agree.

So yeah, there is a little bit of bias.

 

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)
41. Good answer
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:34 PM
Sep 2012

and it seems that many of these alleged free-speech advocates are fine with the drones and US rampages throughout the ME. Out of sight; out of mind.

Free speech is for everyone. Hate speech laws are blasphemy laws.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
64. Umm we kill you with a predator drone if you're involved with Al Qaeda
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:17 PM
Sep 2012

That's little different than if we just disagree with you.

 

Arctic Dave

(13,812 posts)
65. So talking about AQ is enough to kill them?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:37 PM
Sep 2012

Not really free speech is it?

Should we kill all of repug radio. They say the same things.

Hippo_Tron

(25,453 posts)
111. Umm who's been killed for merely talking about Al Qaeda?
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 06:07 PM
Oct 2012

Generally one has to be involved with the organization.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
32. Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of Democracy.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:36 AM
Sep 2012

And as for "islamophobia"... violence does not help assuage that.

Quantess

(27,630 posts)
44. Excellent point, so eloquent.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 03:04 PM
Sep 2012

However, what about Danish cartoonists? What violence did Denmark ever inflict on the Muslim world?
It is not actually a direct equation, with the violence.

It really is about their religion being insulted.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
34. The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up...
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:02 PM
Sep 2012

...and quit throwing temper tantrums when somebody offends them.

Bake

(21,977 posts)
107. Muslims get offended about as much as Republicans do.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:06 PM
Oct 2012

And you know what we think about Republicans.

Bake

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
47. We can't be having any of that free speech stuff.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 03:24 PM
Sep 2012

Commoners might start asking the wrong questions, then before you know it you end up with a secular hellhole like the USA.

jsr

(7,712 posts)
49. This Turkish foreign minister is an Islamist jackass
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 03:47 PM
Sep 2012

"Religion is a matter of conscience. One is always free to act according to the will of one's conscience. We (as a nation) are respectful of religion. It is not our intention to curtail freedom of worship, but rather to ensure that matters of religion and those of the state do not become intertwined." - Atatürk

SomethingFishy

(4,876 posts)
52. Well I guess we need to kill more of them.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 04:47 PM
Sep 2012

The hundreds of thousands we have killed so far hasn't seem to have done much good. THey are still complaining, still rioting, still burning American flags. Maybe we should bomb Iran, I'm sure that'll show those whining, crybaby, Muslims what Free Speech really stands for.

 

Edweird

(8,570 posts)
53. "Islamophobia"? Nope. Not afraid. Fuck them and their bullying censorship.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:06 PM
Sep 2012

If they don't want to see or hear certain things then they are free (pun intended) to go the route of China and filter their internet.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
54. Meanwhile, the Western World questions Muslimn world's treatment of women. (Mine does, anyway.)
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:07 PM
Sep 2012
 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
55. So, after seeing these threads every day for two weeks now, I have one question.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:08 PM
Sep 2012

Since DU'ers are so adamant about defending the "free speech" of people who are dehumanizing Muslims... where is the equally vociferous support for the freedom of speech for David Irving? Unlike Pamela Gellar and the maker of this dumb film, Irving actually faces arrest charges in several nations for his exercise of speech.

So... where the fuck are your threads rallying for his freedom, DKF? Loli phabay, you could put one up, how 'bout it? Odin2005? How about you, chum? What? Not interested? C'mon guys, if we're going to support some asshole's absolute, unquestionable right to dehumanize others, we have to apply it equally! Not just to the ones who dehumanize Muslims.

If you're going to tell me, "oh, I don't support what's said, but I support the right to say it," then show it. Cook up a thread defending the right of an antisemitic holocaust denier to make his case in all instances. Not a post here, gimme a whole damn thread about it.

Or if you can't stomach that idea - can't blame you - how about you show to me that you disagree with what this film is saying?

'Cause so far as i can tell, there hasn't been anyone actually calling out and condemning the content of the film... except for its production quality. Which kinda tells me some DU'ers would watch blackface, so long as it was high def and had good effects.

 

oberliner

(58,724 posts)
58. David Irving has published around 30 books
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:26 PM
Sep 2012

He continues to actively tour the United States giving lectures to various groups.

In the spring of 2011, he gave lectures in 30 cities around the United States about Heinrich Himmler.

More recently he has been traveling throughout Europe doing research on his latest book on Churchill.

I'm not sure he has been in the news recently to warrant a thread in LBN - whereas these speeches at the UN have been pretty widely covered.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
60. I'm glad you showed up, Oberliner.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:35 PM
Sep 2012

Now you can regale us with your take on how Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has an absolute, unquestionable, goddamned RIGHT to speak hatred against gay people, Jews, and deny the Holocaust, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an american-hating fascist. It's pretty recent, so I'm sure you're up-to-date.

Go on. Stage is all yours.

 

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)
85. id say that if he was covered by the 1st amendment then he could as long as he didnt advocate violen
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:35 AM
Oct 2012

but i also think when he talks that stuff then we ahve a right to call him out on it, the only problem is its not just talk with him he fronts a regime that actually acts on those hatreds so we have to look at their actions as well as their words and realise that when they tell us stuff they might not just be blustering.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
87. Again, we're talking about the UN, not the United States.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:45 AM
Oct 2012

And again, Make a thread defending his right. A whole thread, not some milquetoast subthread post.

Shout it to the hills. Loudly proclaim your starry-eyed heart-warming belief that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has an absolute unquestionable right to spew all the hate he wants, as loudly as he wants. hell, maybe he's like Pam Gellar, and his right extends to a community having to provide forum for him to do so!

I'll wait for your new thread, loli. I understand Oberliner's not up to the challenge, but you've got the guts for it, right? Go for it!

 

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)
88. lol i got a feeling that this is a set up, as i said he can say what he likes but i think hes a nut
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:49 AM
Oct 2012

we aint going to silence him in iran or at the UN, what i find interesting is the UN lets him get away with his shite when they dont have to let him do it. As ive said before i think hes a dangerous nut and we should listen to what he says as the regime acts on a lot of the hatred he spews. I think this is the line he does cross in that what he says actually puts people in danger of harm directly, while me drawing a cartoon of a religious leader having a piss can only be acted on.

Response to loli phabay (Reply #88)

 

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)
92. lol where did you get i want to murder thousands of iranians
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 03:13 AM
Oct 2012

personally i want them to be free fro the nutters who rule their country and recently put down the peoples protests. I actually think you like the guy and what he says as I havent heard you talk about the regime getting deposed and supporting it. mayby you have but i havent seen it.

NutmegYankee

(16,152 posts)
59. Has Irving been tried in the USA?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:31 PM
Sep 2012

No? Then what the hell is your post about again?

The US does not ban hate speech, even from a Nazi lover like Irving.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
61. Are you paying any attention at all?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:44 PM
Sep 2012

One, this is a thread about the UN. Keep up.

Two, no, Irving has not been tried in the US. Nor has Pam Gellar or this whatshisname dude behind Innocence of Muslims... but people are rallying for their rights to speech, DESPITE those rights not being in question. So I expect the same treatment to be extended to a Nazi lover like Irving just as certainly as it's extended to an Islamophobe like Gellar.

NutmegYankee

(16,152 posts)
62. And obviously it is.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:49 PM
Sep 2012

I don't condone what Mr. Irving says, but I defend his right to say it. Even considering that he is raging asshole.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
63. Nothing personal, but I don't buy that line.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:07 PM
Sep 2012

"I don't condone their right to say it, but I defend their right to say it," while a nice sentiment, actually requires proof.

People don't condone the message sent by Pam Gellar, "Innocence of Muslims," and all this other shit? Okay, nice to say so, but where's hte evidence? Where are the threads condemning hte bigots? Where are the threads deriding hte content presented? A homophobe gets called out to the carpet and berated for their bigotry. Misogynists do. Antisemites do. White supremacists do. Islamophobs do not. At least, not on DU.

Defending the right to say it? Okay, I see constant posting of brand-new shiny threads defending the rights of Islamophobic bigots to speak their piece. Alright, they have that right... but where is the concerted, constant defense of the Phelpses, the David Irvings, and the Pat Buchanans of the world on DU? Why is it just the islamophobes that conjure such a rousing, full-throttle defense on DU?

Until i see either of these things, I consider people spouting "I don't condone their right to say it, but I defend their right to say it" as an inane catch phrase to just be using it as some sort of fig leaf.

Behind the Aegis

(53,651 posts)
66. Yet another case of your not seeing it because you can't or won't?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:16 PM
Sep 2012

Or is it possible because you haven't been here long enough?

You have a star, which means you can do searches, both here and at DU2. Of course, there is also always Google. You will find a number of people who didn't care for the banning of a recent Hitler novel (or some such). I, myself, found myself on the hors of dilemma over that particular situation. The laws of Germany are not our laws; they have specific reasons for their bans, but in the end, stifling or hiding free speech will not work.

As for Phelps and his clan? Holy shit! There have been HUNDREDS of threads over the years about his protests of funerals, opening, candidates, and the like. There have been scores of threads about the "funeral laws" (basically forbidding him and others from being within a certain footage to the area). MOST will come out and say something like, "I don't condone his speech/actions, but I support his right to express them." Same goes for David Irving and "the Pat Buchanans." So, your assessment that it is just the islamaphobes that get a pass is absurd, but might explain why you whip around in these type of threads accusing people of bigotry and war-mongering.

I suggest you open your eyes, do a search on the names you listed, and read before you post again how anyone condemning the current battle against free speech is a secret Muslim and/or Arab hater!

ETA: Since our last exchange two more examples have croppe dup, neither from the dreaded pro-Israel type, conflating Jews and Israel. Do you need me to provide the locations of these posts?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
72. The problem is, there is no "battle," Aegis
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:42 AM
Oct 2012

If course, categorizing it as such has the benefit of portraying the people you are disagreeing with as violent, aggressive, "bad" people who need to be fought against, possibly even with lethal force, rather than human beings who are bringing a difference of opinion to a political forum designed for such disagreement.

It's a war, son! First the liberals came for Christmas! Now the Muslims are coming for our free speech! We've gotta beat them from our shores; we will defend our isle!

...Except that's not the case at all, as anyone with a lick of sense can see. Is whatshisname behind this film facing criminal charges for it? No, he's not. How about Pamela Gellar? Again, nope. Ann "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity" Coulter? Again, nope. Daniel Pipes? Nope. Michelle Bachmann? Nope. A third of the I/P forum regulars? Nope! So while it's nice that you're engaged in the "battle for free speech," it's not especially clear who or what it is you're fighting against. It's the philosophical equivalent of calling yourself a militia so you have a "patriotic" excuse to get drunk in the woods and shoot at trees while bitching about "them dem ferriners."

I would think, given your posting habits, maybe you'd be more interested in tackling dehumanization of an entire group of people, instead of shadow-boxing a non-issue. Frankly I'd expect that of DU in general, but hey, what the hell, I guess.

Behind the Aegis

(53,651 posts)
73. But there is a battle, Scootaloo.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:50 AM
Oct 2012

It is one that denies that others who find this behavior outrageous, but still protected, have done so with other outrageous behaviors and statements, yet are being portrayed as anti-Muslim bigots. Your clever little witticism and sarcasm aside, it demonstrates you unwillingness to see the very thing you are denying, actually IS happening at DU. Free speech of all those you listed have been defended over and over again. There isn't this massive conspiracy of those who have a no problem with this YouTube clip (other than its bigoted nature), and the same people railing for the silence of Phelps, Buchannan, etc.

As for my posting habits, I have routinely defended free speech, while condemning what was said, but that includes addressing this type of nonsense.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
76. No, it's not a battle.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:15 AM
Oct 2012

I'm not fighting against free speech. I'm fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry. Hell, if this shit of a film took aim at Islam rather than Muslims, I wouldn't even bother; ideas and people are very different things, after all.

Now you can mouth all the feel-nice, self-hug platitudes you want. Really, you can. And until I see some demonstration to go with sentiment, I'm going to hold that you're just full of shit. Saying "I don't agree" doesn't matter until you actually express disagreement. Which neither you, nor the majority of DU'ers shadowboxing this non-issue have chosen to do, despite ample opportunity. It's not "I haven't had a chance," it's "I refuse to do so." Instead there's these lukewarm "I don't agree's" blathered around, free of detail, context, or expression. It's a rote, meaningless statement, devoid of any thought other than "oh shit, where's my fig leaf?!"

Until then? You and the others are that person who proclaims to "stand with" a group, then mutely "stands by" when shit happens. I'm sure you know the sort.

Behind the Aegis

(53,651 posts)
78. You claim to be fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry, but you aren't.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 01:22 AM
Oct 2012

You are wildly lashing out in one personal attack after another against anyone who doesn't conform to YOUR specified needs. You made a conclusion that these arguments don't exist when it comes to other speakers. I told you what you need to do; it is obvious you didn't do it. I can only conclude is because you know it will likely fly in the face of your personal accusations against other DU'ers, myself included. You claim you are all about not wanting to see groups attacked, but have no issue what so ever attacking one DU'er after another with personal isults and claims they are "full of shit." Spin it anyway you want, you are engaging the very behavior you claim to be wanting to stop.

"I'm fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry." Uh-huh.

ETA: This thread isn't about that fucking film, it is about Muslim nations wanting to stifle free speech, lest you forget since you have gone so far off topic.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
80. You're right.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:01 AM
Oct 2012

I have zero qualms about "attacking" DU'ers who demonstrate an inability to condemn the dehumanization of an entire category of humanity. I find myself getting frustrated when this simple "fucking duh!" sentiment which should just be a given on a site like this, seems to fall on deaf ears. I do not regard these as negatives, however, even though the group in question is an acceptable target on DU.

And thank you, I know what the thread is about. it's why I brought up David Irving, and his arrest warrants for antisemitism and holocaust denial. Those aren't those diabolical "Muslim nations," and you're not framing that situation as a "battle," yet unlike Whatshisface behind "Innocence" that asshole actually really is facing the possibility of arrest if he puts his foot on the wrong side of a border. Surely, there should bee daily threads posted by DU'ers crusading for his free speech rights? And I'm sure you, being one of them would happily kick one off; what do you say, Aegis, want to start up a "Free speech for David Irving!" rally on DU?

As for the issue itself... it's a difference of opinion. Some leaders of Muslim nations say "there oughtta be a law." Their statements are added to the minutes, they sit down, and that's it. Clearly this is a savage fight that we all have to knuckle down for over the long run... or.. .we could just realize that they are not the first group to make the same statement, to just about the same damn effect - nothing.

Like I said, your "battle for free speech" is meaningless, because there's nothing for you to be fighting against. While you choose to throw jabs and roundhouses at an imaginary opponent, you're also choosing ot ignore the dehumanization of an entire group of people who, I suppose, just don't ping on your radar?

 

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)
86. i think the video is not about dehumanizing people its taking the piss out of their religion
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:43 AM
Oct 2012

much the same as happens every day on a thousand websites to every religion. I think the main story is the fact that people chose to react violently to it and the debate about whether people who think other religions are a load of shite should be alowed to take the proverbial piss out of them. whether its that Mohammad was a child molester, Jesus was married and rode a t rex, magical mormon underpants, whether jews wear clogs or witches make love naked in the park.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
89. See, if it were JUST "lol Mohammed was a dingbat" or something, I'd agree
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:51 AM
Oct 2012

But no. I mean it does do that, but it also has "modern" sequences where Muslims are axe-murdering rapists. And the apparent protagonist makes it clear that it's not "some Muslims are bad people," but rather it's "MUSLIMS ARE TERRIBLE THINGS!"

Think of the difference between "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and... Say, Jud Suss.

The first skewers the Old Testament as an ahistorical, abominable, ludicrous document, an absolute wall-banging waste of vellum and papyrus, full of really idiotic ideas.
The second takes the people who believe the stuff in that the Old Testament... and portrays them as blood-thirty vermin, a plague on humanity that seek the downfall of Christendom.

You see the difference? Denigrating and demonizing ideas, however harshly, is one thing. Doing the same to the people is another.

 

loli phabay

(5,580 posts)
90. and you know i probuably wouldnt like his movie and think hes a prick, but im not going to shut him
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:56 AM
Oct 2012

up, im going to look at him in the same way as the illinois nazis and just move on. What im not going to do is kill people or set fire to some other persons shit, the whole point of freedom is that sometimes people do shit that we dont like and we do shit they dont like. Other countries have their own values on free speech but as the guy is an american in america then he can pretty much say what he wants and thats a good thing.

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
71. Denial
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:07 AM
Oct 2012

You have formed a delusional view of DU history and deny, for whatever reason, something everyone else recognizes are real history—the widespread, strident, prolonged and almost violent DU condemnation of the makers of "Innocence of Muslims."

Fortunately nobody is proposing throwing you in jail for promulgating that factually indefensible view.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
82. My right to free speech guarantees that I can criticize homophobes, Holocaust deniers, racists,
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:22 AM
Oct 2012

anti-Muslim warmongers and all kinds of really nasty people who want to deprive others of their rights or falsify history.

But that same right to free speech, my right to free speech, does not permit me to deny them their right to free speech.

I can criticize the speech of people with whom I disagree. I can even say that they should not say what they say. But I cannot ask my government to punish them for exercising their right to free speech.

If I post a picture of Jesus in my yard so that my atheist neighbor can see it and my atheist neighbor reacts by violently setting his garage on fire, it cannot be said that I incited my atheist neighbor to violently burn his garage. It can only be said that my neighbor is a fool.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
83. You have the right, but apparently not the inclination.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:30 AM
Oct 2012

Wonderful for you.

You'd rather spin in circles, assuring yourself you support their right to say gnarly shit when such a right is in no danger anyway, than actually criticize what they're saying. Oh, you totally would, if you weren't so busy twirling in place, but, you know... priorities, man.

NutmegYankee

(16,152 posts)
112. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that Mr. Irving doesn't kill people.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:34 PM
Oct 2012

He spouts verbal diarrhea, but he doesn't riot and he doesn't kill people.

What you call Islamophobes are DUers who are disgusted at behavior, not race or ethnicity or faith. Speech, even disgusting hateful speech, is inherently nonviolent. You can provide more speech and show how awful the other guys position really is. That is not what happened in these riots.

And you can spare me the whining about faith. My family is German Protestant (Calvinist). My family fled their homeland due to religious violence hundreds of years ago. I know full well that Christians (and other faiths) are capable of this sort of violence. All I ask is that the Muslim world join us in tolerance for speech that offends them. The Western World did it. So can they.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
67. You don't seem to get it. Saying I support the First Amendment is a blanket statement.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:22 PM
Sep 2012

I don't have to jump through any hoop you hold in front of me to show support for the First Amendment. Fuck a buncha that.

I support The First Amendment's guarantee of the right to freedom of speech. Period.

See how easy that was?

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
70. Wonderful for you.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:03 AM
Oct 2012

Too bad so many only express the notion for the benefit of Islamophobes whose rights are in no danger.

But hey. That's your right too, I guess.

MNBrewer

(8,462 posts)
100. I know you can't post in this thread any more
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:14 AM
Oct 2012

as another of your attacks on this topic has been hidden here, but whose rights ARE in danger in your estimation?

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
68. Anyone should have a right to deny the holocaust
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 11:53 PM
Sep 2012

Your petulant call-out is a very obvious attempt to get people to argue an even less popular position so that your reprehensible views will have more ad hoc support from whoever you are trying to appeal to.

And you seem to think that there is something difficult about defending the right to publish grossly inaccurate history, which is actually about the easiest possible case to make.

There cannot be an official history the adherence to which is enforced criminally by any government.

Any government is free to have an official history, of course. Schools teach about the real holocaust, as they should. They also (one hopes) teach that the world is billions of years old, and all sorts of other true stuff that a few crazy people don't believe.

It must not, however, use force to require that people believe it, or to prevent people from voicing disagreement.

And, ironically, one of the many things that points up the absolute moral and practical necessity that no government control by force what people think is the example of the Holocaust.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
84. You make a good point, cthulu2016.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 02:31 AM
Oct 2012

There is an entire industry in the US that profits from denial of evolution -- a pretty well established historical fact.

No one tries to silence them. They enjoy the right to believe and state whatever nonsense they wish. And J.K. Rowling can publish books about magic and no one can object.

All kinds of books and movies that criticize Christianity or specific Christian groups have been written and published -- and become the bases of new religions.

And then there are the Mormons and the atheists and people with all kinds of diverse beliefs that are critical of people of other beliefs.

This fuss about prohibiting speech that offends this religion or that is unrealistic.

In the US where we have so many, many religions, each of which has its own odd beliefs and sensitivities, repressing speech that criticizes or ridicules the religious beliefs of others would be impossible.

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
57. When they allow women to drive cars alone, vote, talk to strange men and own their own businesses
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:24 PM
Sep 2012

I will be more receptive to their "concerns" and "questions".

 

closeupready

(29,503 posts)
105. Should we give you a call? "Get back to [you]"?
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:59 AM
Oct 2012

How should we let you know they have finally earned their sovereignty in your (VERY humble ) opinion?

Vincardog

(20,234 posts)
106. They are expressing desired actions to be taken by MY sovereign Government Please do get back to me
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 12:12 PM
Oct 2012

My opinion is that they should take care of their won house before they start telling me how to take care of mine.
What is your (VERY humble ) opinion?

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
124. Are we also allowed to mock Muhammad? Because he was a pedophile.
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 08:14 AM
Oct 2012

"According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
131. I see no problem with it!
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:32 AM
Oct 2012

Of course, there's a minority of crazy people that would want to saw your head off if you did, but that's not a majority of people, or even a majority of Muslims.

I personally was not raised to saw the heads off of people who offended me by mocking fictional characters.

Bucky

(53,511 posts)
113. I don't think I'll be taking a lecture on ethnic hatred from Islamic fundamentalists today.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:36 PM
Oct 2012

We're not, by the way, just protecting Islamophobia. We're protecting the fundies' right to argue back against that bigotry.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
115. I have one thing to say to them.
Mon Oct 1, 2012, 09:43 PM
Oct 2012

(Not image-tagged because it might offend)

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/ 6176083/2/stock-illustration-6176083-middle-finger-salute.jpg

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
127. "I don't like what he says, but I defend his right to say it".
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 09:47 AM
Oct 2012

Whether it's Holocaust deniers, stupid Muhammed videos, "Piss Christ", Magic Underwear jokes, or someone claiming that Obama is the anti-Christ.

Why do so many DUers seem to have trouble with this concept? It's not a new idea.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
129. "Freedom does not mean anarchy"
Wed Oct 3, 2012, 10:13 AM
Oct 2012

That move in no way represented the ideology of anarchy. There response was much closer.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»At U.N., Muslim world que...