Muhammed drawings and free speech

[TheFaithfulStone]

Indeed - the intent of the speech may be to offend - but unless the intent of the speech is to cause physical harm then it's protected.

 

Thus a picture of Mohammed a terrorist - protected speech. A picture of the Danish Queen as a pig? Protected. A picture of the Danish Pig with a sword stuck through her and the exortation to "Do this!" - Unprotected.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

:)

 

Danish Pig

 

:)

 

Holy Crap! Totally a typo. I'll leave it though as evidence that even protected speech can have poisonous consequences. (And leave some evidence for the anti-hate speech crowd. :hihi:)

 

A free society makes some tough demands on it's citizens.

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Beautiful.

[InfiniteNow]

What is this thread meant to be about?

"You do not screw around with God's Chosen People" but screwing around with muslims, even suicidal terrorists, is everyman's birthright??

Here's an idea:

Start here...

http://hypography.com/forums/social-sciences/5295-muhammed-drawings-free-speech.html

and read.

 

 

Cheers. :hihi:

[InfiniteNow]

It's just so silly. Although they were in poor taste, and easily incited anger, the cartoons were also a bit prophetic. Does not the response show what the cartoons depict?

 

The cartoons are a caricature, meant to quickly bring several concepts together in one quick picture. They are not meant to imply that all Muslims are violent fundamentalists, just that violence in fundamentalism these days is frequently seen coming from some who practice in the Islamic faith.

 

And now, the subjects of the cartoons are proving the validity of their content to us all.

[Pyrotex]

:...Totally a typo. I'll leave it though as evidence...

As an official representative of the Swine Anti Defamation Legal Extortionarium (SADLE) I wish to inform you that we have pornographic cartoons of you, the prophet or messiah of your choice and a large male swine, which we will publish in the Nocturnal Aviation Gazette (a fly-by-night tabloid) unless we receive a large sum of guilders in a Nike shoebox by next Thursday.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I won't pay.

 

But consider George Bush my messiah. Now go draw some dirty pictures. :hihi:

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

I won't pay. But consider George Bush my messiah. Now go draw some dirty pictures. :)

:D :bat: :) :) B) :) B) :) B) :) :hihi: :cup: B)

 

okay. I will.

[Qfwfq]

But, Buffy dear!

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.

You seem to have missed my point!

 

Actually, it was somewhat directed at Tormod :) who, I believe it was him, seemed even to be calling for all democracy supporting papers to publish them as a matter of principle, regardless of agreeing with the content. :hihi: Not a good solution if you ask me.

 

I'm unsure if the "Incitement to riot" law you mention is in line with my point. Does that law only concern explicitly rallying your own fellas to a riot, or does it include offensive expression that causes rioting by your target? As for intent, I've repeatedly voiced my opinion that there was intent here. Jyllands knew they would be provoking terrorists too. Many Muslims did a lot of howling but terrorists did a bit more than that. It was however a measured, if violent, reaction. I think most of the casualties have been protesters, not victims of them.

 

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.

Yep, some of us do disagree.

 

Buffy kindly mentioned libel and slander for me.One of these, I can't remember which 'cause I'm less familiar with British/American legaleese, doesn't require proving even economic loss. If you disagree with that I'll start callin' ya a dirty f***in' son of a *****. ;)

[Tormod]

Actually, it was somewhat directed at Tormod :) who, I believe it was him, seemed even to be calling for all democracy supporting papers to publish them as a matter of principle, regardless of agreeing with the content. :hihi: Not a good solution if you ask me.

 

I didn't mean for everyone to publish them regardless of agreeing with them. I am however of the opinion that the more the cartoons are spread, the less powerful they will be.

 

A Moslem thinker here in Norway has advocated this view.

 

Seeing that for example Malaysia now has banned *possession* of the cartoons, we are seeing an example of how governments are oppressing their people by dictating what sort of printed matter they can own or not.

 

That's why it's important to make the cartoons abundant.

 

(And please do not use this as an argument for spreading of child pornography etc...it's a different matter entirely).

[nkt]

(And please do not use this as an argument for spreading of child pornography etc...it's a different matter entirely)

 

Tormod, could you explain exactly how you think it is different?

[infamous]

 

 

 

Not a threat of war (I hope).

The insane reality is this: When any nation or group declares war on you, You have no choice but to be at war. Until the nations of this world understand that the radical Muslim movement has in fact, declared war on those who don't hold to their religious views; We are destined to remain with our heads stuck in the proverbial sand............Infy

[CraigD]

The insane reality is this: When any nation or group declares war on you, You have no choice but to be at war.

I think this claim must be qualified: When any nation or group with the capability and intention of effectively waging war against you declares war on you, you have not choice but to be at war. For example, when Gulf War veteran and Bronze Star recipient Timothy McVeigh “declared war” on the federal government of the US, neither the Executive not the Legislature affirmed nor expressed any desire that the US “be at war”, even though after his arrest, he admitted sympathy for, familiarity with, and a desire to further the documented violent agenda of such organizations as National Alliance and Christian Identity, and despite. It is reasonable to conclude that this is because law enforcement and military officials concluded that, although individuals and groups identifying with these organizations might be capable of inflicting terrible damage in attacks such as the Murrah Federal Building bombing (168 killed, 800+ injured) concluded that these individuals and groups posed too slight a threat to be considered “at war” with, and that civilian law enforcement was adequate and best suited to handle them. To date, this assessment has been proven correct.

 

On one extreme, if China, Russia, Japan, the UK, France, or nearly any nation or coalition of nations with a military and the capability to bring that military to bear on her, were to declare war on the US, there would be no choice but to be at war. Without the mobilization of the militia (an sizable portion of which is currently already enlisted in her armed forces), the US would almost certainly lose a war against any of these countries, and forfeit her sovereignty.

 

On the other, I had an acquaintance (to whom I regularly delivered food, and, when it was cold, blankets) who by all accounts declared war on the US – by way of written declarations, delivered to hapless State Department, Secret Service, and DC Metro and Park Police - every week or two. Despite the explicit nature of his declarations – I read one, and was surprised at its lucid and official-sounding language – he was not even taken seriously enough to be readmitted into an in-patient mental hospital, where IMHO, he belonged.

 

A declaration of war from an organizations such as al-Queda or individuals such as Timothy McVeigh falls between these extremes. Most (but by no means all), I think, would agree that al-Queda warrants being taken more seriously than any domestic terrorist. However, neither, by any well-informed analysis, can be considered a serious threat to the sovereignty of the US. According to my limited understanding of the rules governing war and relations between states, it is inappropriate for Congress to declare war, or the Executive to prosecute a war, against such organizations or individuals.

 

In fact of public law, Congress has not declared any such war. Although public statements from sources as high and credible as congress persons and the President have on occasion stated that the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 is such a declaration, an examination of the act reveals it to be funding, legal, oversight, and even civil rights and entitlement bill.

 

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 is, to all but a legal hair-splitter, a declaration of war, though a peculiar one that grants the Executive the choice of – and actually encourages him not to – prosecute the war. It is, however, expressly not a declaration of war against al-Queda or any other non-government organization, or even, as is widely believed and reported, against the person of Saddam Hussein, but against the state of Iraq.

 

Until the nations of this world understand that the radical Muslim movement has in fact, declared war on those who don't hold to their religious views; We are destined to remain with our heads stuck in the proverbial sand …

I believe that a careful examination of the history and current state of militant Islam (an oxymoron if ever there was one, one meaning of the word “Islam” being “peace”!) reveals, in the form of widely disseminated statements by numerous Muslim leaders, that these movements do not seek the destruction or conversion non-Muslims. Prior to 2003, these groups were clear their threat against anyone who aided the state of Israel. After 2003, the message seems split between the old condemnation of supporters of Israel, and condemnation of the US invasion of Iraq.

 

Despite what religious and secular leaders on both sides might have people believe, the source of Muslim hatred for the US is not, to the best of my understanding, of a religious nature. Theologically, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are closely related, sharing many of the same scriptures and beliefs. Historically, Muslims, Christians, and Jews have proved good neighbors. The key source of the hatred Muslims feel toward the US – and make no mistake, a lot of hatred is there, even among the civil and peace-loving majority of Muslims – is due to 20th century territorial disputes in Israel and surrounding countries.

 

Whether a resolution of these disputes is possible, given all of the hatred and death that has soiled this region, is question brooking long and uncertain debate, possibly beyond the ability of most Americans, Arabs, and Israelis to influence. What is within all of our power is to understand in detail the true history that has lead us to today, and the true wishes and intentions of the world’s people. Important in gaining this understanding is the realization that (IMO) nearly all of our religious and secular leaders are actively using our fear, hatred, and lack of understanding to further their own agendas, which in many cases go no further than satisfying their personal desire for wealth and power, or affirming their personal intellectual or religious beliefs.

 

We are members of a Science forum, accustom to mistrusting self and popularly proclaimed authorities, and digging for ourselves for scientifically verifiable evidence leading to a best understanding of what actually is. We should apply this approach to understanding not only the domain of quantifiable matter and energy, but to the vague and complicated domain of human society. Perhaps, if enough of us embrace this approach, we will influence society for the better. At the least, we can stop using our beloved Science forum as a place to bandy political rhetoric, a pursuit well-hosted by numerous political internet forums.

[infamous]

At the least, we can stop using our beloved Science forum as a place to bandy political rhetoric, a pursuit well-hosted by numerous political internet forums.

This is never-the-less, the Social sciences portion of Hypography and is frankly, the proper place to voice such opinions..............Infy

[Racoon]

CraigD has some valid points,

 

But I thought "War on Terrorism" means war on Terrorists! :hihi:

whether Al-Qaida, Timothy McVeigh, or Earth Liberation Front.

 

We are warring after Taliban, that Phillipino group, Chechens(at least the Russians are), FARC, and anyone who US deems terrorist...

 

I would like to add that One Mans Terrorist is another Mans Freedom Fighter!

 

The Boston Tea Partiers were "terrorists" by definition.

 

Agree with Infy, this is Social and Political science. Not hard fact.

[TheBigDog]

I would like to add that One Mans Terrorist is another Mans Freedom Fighter!

 

The Boston Tea Partiers were "terrorists" by definition.

Racoon, please tread very carefully when comparing the US revolution to terrorists. :hihi: Throwing tea into the bay to protest tea taxes is a far cry from randomly killing civilians to force the will of a government.

 

Bill

[Racoon]

The Revolutionists killed British troops. That was seen as terrorism.( by British)

They refused the laws and concepts of mother Britian, and killed over it. (even recruited Indians to kill! )

 

The same as Easterners are refuting our Judeo-Christian pressures.

 

Terrorism can be defined quickly as: "The use of terror and intimidation to gain one's political objective"

 

Contrarily BigDog, the tea party was Intimidation to British Tea merchants, saying 'We will not be a subject of your politics and taxes'.

 

I am not advocating killing by any means.

But objectively 'Racoon' sees an Al-Queda agent as a terrorist, while 'Sabib Salir' in Yemen sees them as fighting the oppresion!

Get my drift?