Muhammed drawings and free speech

[Qfwfq]

No matter how offensive, its been clear that the people with truly offensive views--like our long history of KKK and neo-Nazi types--never really ever get any where *unless* you make a big deal about their foolish rantings.

 

If you don't like what someone says, *don't give them free advertising*!!!

That's quite true Buffy and it's why certain laws over here have a rather theoretical role. However I'm still not 100% of your implications: if something published by the KKK or the neo-Nazi causes a violent riot, what do you do? Do you give them free advertising, by repeating what they published to assert the right of free speach?

 

Waiting to be sure of your views.... :angel:

[simay77]

Surely all these events have done is shown us that ANY religion or personal belief needs to stay exactly that > personal.

The people who have reacted in the way they did: several dead in Afghanistan, riots at many Danish embassies, signs proclaiming 'Europe will have its 9/11', 'Slay those who insult Islam' have 100% justified the cartoon.

 

By all means take offence but by what moral code does it make sense to kill someone over an inult. I heard a Muslim say on tv 'Insult me, my children or my wife but do not insult my God'. Get your priorities sorted out. You place your God, of which there is no physical proof of ever existing more important than your own flesh and blood and your own wife.

 

It is time to leave religion were it should always have been > at home.

[ughaibu]

Tormod: You have said that you dont defend the action but you do defend the principle. This implies defending all manifestations of the principle regardless of the action. The principle supercedes restrictions imposed by local laws or idiosyncracies of morality, as I understand it the willingness to die for this principle normally refers to a willingness to defy laws. If one is willing to defend the principle regardless of the action, defiance of copyright comes into it, as do contraventions of official secrets, publishing confidential private data, etc. The choice is to apply the principle overall or to be selective.

You have also said that you're prepared to die in defense of free speech, so far you are still alive and the cartoons have been published, it seems to me you're doing well on the bargain. I certainly hope that you dont end up dying in the case that publication of these cartoons leads to a reduction in rights of free speech, it doesn't seem worth dying for the action even if it might for the principle.

About your question as to the 'why' of the reaction, I offered a couple of suggestions but they didn't generate interest.

[Tormod]

The thread is about free speech and Islam, and whether a few overreacting nut jobs should be able to hold the Western World hostage.

 

That post was a joke.

 

TFS

[there reallly needs to be a /sarcasm tag]

 

I disabled that due to all the nutcases who hang around here pretending to be philosophers.

 

*ducks*

 

 

:angel:

[Tormod]

Tormod: You have said that you dont defend the action but you do defend the principle. This implies defending all manifestations of the principle regardless of the action.

 

PLEASE. The issue of copyright as a freedom-of-speech limitation has NO bearings in this issue, unless you want to talk about all the papers who have published the cartoons without paying the original owners (ie, the cartoonists).

 

Start a new thread. It is not meant as a put-down.

[ughaibu]

If that's the case you are discussing the particular action, not the principle.

[TheFaithfulStone]

:hihi:

 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

 

Just because Tormod defends the ability of Jyllands-Posten to publish stupid cartoons doesn't mean that he defends their choice to do so.

 

Also - being for free speech doesn't mean that you are necessarily against copyright, for revealing state secrets, etc.

 

It's an application of Mills Harm Principle - which is basically that unless it does harm to someone else, you have the right to do it. This is normally understood to imply physical harm - although copyright extends this logic to apply to economic harm. (Obviously, state secrets DO entail physical harm to someone - possible a whole lot of someones - or at least, the state will claim so.)

 

Some would extend this to cover emotional or pyschological harm. You can't say something if it would distress someone else. While I think this pretty clearly contravenes the idea of equality - intelligent people can and do disagree about it. (I'm looking at you Q :))

 

But you've set up a straw man - "If you are for free speech then you are also against copyright, state secrets, and privacy!" That's not anybody's argument (here at least) so demolishing it does you no good.

 

TFS

 

[sarcasm]

Philosophy is for the weak bourgeoises! Action! Action! Action!

[/sarcasm]

[ughaibu]

I have not set up a straw man, I am discussing definitions. People are already dead, doesn't that come under "harm"?

[Tormod]

If that's the case you are discussing the particular action, not the principle.

Last attempt: Start a new thread about this issue.

[Tormod]

I have not set up a straw man, I am discussing definitions. People are already dead, doesn't that come under "harm"?

 

Not because of copyright issues, no. Start a new thread about copyright and free speech.

[ughaibu]

Are you denying me freedom of speech on this thread?

[nkt]

Wow, long thread!

 

Having read about the first 7 pages, and then given up, and jumped forward, I shall sum up what I have determined from the comments I've read.

 

On the one hand we have the Americans, who think they have the right to offend anyone, with the implicit assumption that they have a big enough army to smite those who they upset, and on the other hand, we have the rest of the world, who see freedom of speech as something a little more moderated, and think that getting into fights for shouting abuse is a silly thing. Then we have some radical Muslims, who aren't on this site, but seem to be for chopping off of hands...

 

For those who are wondering why the UK press haven't published the pictures, well, it is because we don't have a right to free speech (nor to free assembly, to bear arms, to remain silent, etc.) and the "hate speech" law revision, which would have banned many types of speech which are currently legal, including jokes and many other things, to prevent "hate". Obviously, such violent attacks on freedom of expression by our apparently Nazi government have had a chilling effect on the press, despite the latest tightening being rejected by the House of Lords.

 

In light of this, who is correct? The group that see might as right, and jump to defend those rights they still have to the death, those that oppose those rights, to the death, or the sad group who are "moderate" and slowly have lost all rights?

 

I would rather be in either of the groups that believe that violence does solve otherwise insoluble problems, than the one which sits on it's hands and loses everything in the long run. Opinions?

[Tormod]

Are you denying me freedom of speech on this thread?

 

I am offering you freedom of speech in another thread.

[TheFaithfulStone]

On the one hand we have the Americans, who think they have the right to offend anyone, with the implicit assumption that they have a big enough army to smite those who they upset,

 

I think that's an unfairly violent characterization of Americans, and as such, IMA GONNA KICK YO ***! :hihi:

 

Actually NKT, pretty much spot-on, I'd say.

 

TFS

[simay77]

I watched the protests in the UK and I was/am truly scared by the mentality of the people who place cartoons of their God as reason enough to kill.

 

We have to remember that the people who decided to publish the cartoon are not Muslim. The rules of that Religion does not apply to people who do not suscribe to their beliefs.

 

These exremists do NOT represent the majority of Islam, however they must understand that it is they who are putting up this wall and creating an Us Vs Them situation.

 

TORMOD and ughaibu: it sounds like you guys need to relaaaax.

[ughaibu]

Simay77: Dont worry, we're having fun.

[Buffy]

...However I'm still not 100% of your implications: if something published by the KKK or the neo-Nazi causes a violent riot, what do you do? Do you give them free advertising, by repeating what they published to assert the right of free speach?

"Incitement to riot" is its own law, and has all the quirks of "libel" and "slander": its not the *speech itself* that causes the triggering of a legal offense, its the *intent*. Along the same lines, our pornography laws here specify stuff like appealing to the "prurient interest", because otherwise pornographic words and images (Henry James, Diane Arbus), can easily be argued as art *solely* based on intent. This lets a lot of stuff off the hook, but actually allows fairly benign speech to be prosecuted because its *intent* is to cause harm.

 

Yes, I'm for letting these people say whatever they want. I admonish those who are offended that its better for *society* if they respond in kind rather than by causing harm or destruction of persons or property, and its also good for society to allow people to be able to let off steam by "Howling" (thank you Alan Ginsberg) whatever the heck it is they want to scream.

 

"I saw the best minds of my generation..." :hihi:

Buffy