Muhammed drawings and free speech

[CraigD]

i have heard the prisoners in our federal prisons are turning to Islam, why do you think that is true?

I have also heard that, though I have no data to suggest that prisoners convert to Islam significantly more than they convert to other religions.

 

Although I don’t personally know anyone who converted to Islam (or any other religion) in prison, I know several ex-cons who knew such people. It’s their opinion that Islam is attractive because of its strict intolerance of drugs and alcohol use. Many people in prison have profound substance abuse problems, and are attracted to organizations that offer help in overcoming their problems. Theistic but non-denominational programs like Alcoholics Anonymous are also popular in prisons – in my limited experience, many times more popular than Islam.

 

I’m also told that not all “Muslims” in the prison population are religiously observant, and that some supposedly religious groups are merely front for gangs. Because First Amendment protections extend to religious observances, such gangs are more difficult for prison officials to prohibit.

 

I’m not too worried about militant imams recruiting US prisoners into terrorists organizations. Contact with prisoners by outsiders, even for religious purposes, is controlled by prison officials, who’re unlikely to allow such imams access. I doubt that many inmate would dare preach a militant anti-American message, as post-9/11 medium+ security US prisons contain some very patriotic, very violent people, who would f**k them up. (They do allow rednecks in prison)

[TheBigDog]

Although I don’t personally know anyone who converted to Islam (or any other religion) in prison, I know several ex-cons who knew such people. It’s their opinion that Islam is attractive because of its strict intolerance of drugs and alcohol use.

Not to mention homosexuality. If you want to drop your soap without worry, be a Muslim.

 

Another thing to consider is that the denomonation typically found in Prison's is "The Nation of Islam", created by Elija Mohammad and headed today by Louis Farrakan. They are as Islamic as Protestants are Catholic. Read "The Autobiography of Malcolm X" to gain great intsight into this organization. Do not watch the movie, it was "Spiked up" for political purposes and bears little of the message of the book.

 

Bill

[Qfwfq]

Come ho Irish, weeeeeeeeee!

:hihi:

 

Yet another sane person realizes that, if you choose to fry some eggs for breakfast, those are less chickens you can expect to get. The compromise between freedom and equality is what I call reponsibilty.

 

When he told me it was serious, I was in shock. I mean, come on... people wanting to kill the Danes and Norwegians? Give me a break!

A threat is a serious thing, but I didn't take those ones quite that seriously, for various reasons. Anyway AFAIK none of the dead so far have been Scandinavians and, besides, Tormod is still live 'n' kickin' and which ones would they have gone for before him? :)

 

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.

I was just pokin' a spot of fun Tor. This morning I heard the radio saying Muslim journalists in a few countries had been arrested for having published them and I think this (not the fact they were arrested!) is a better thing than them being published by western Christian journalists. Certainly a very different thing.

 

...in American law, libel/slander is a matter of fact and not of intent. I can call you all the nasty names I want, and that's fine...

It ain't up to me to decide American law but I'm surprised and I offer alternative, since we're in the relevant and highly subtle isuue of drawing lines between contrasting but fundamental rights.

 

Over here the felony of "ingiuria" is defined as harming one's reputation. Indeed the article contains the words "before others" implying that's where the harm is and it says "describing someone in a way contrary to their dignity and decore" or something like that. Curiously, the article also states that prosecution procedes independently of any inquiry into the veridicity of the description and I've heard lawyers saying this implies that, strictly, you can't call someone a theif even if they are! You're perfectly free to, and much better to, press charges and have them prosecuted. Of course, if you're chasing a thief and call "theif" to attract help of passers by, you could call that legitimate defence. There's such a thing as "reasonable".

 

Free speech, BTW, has nothing to do with kiddie porn. Child pornography is a clear harm to someone - a child. Anyone who argues that kiddie porn doesn't hurt the children depicted in it? Well, they have a pretty flimsy grasp on reality.

Did you perhaps take Tormod's pre-emptive strike as being a reply to something I had said?

 

I must admit, when Tormod mentioned *possession* of the cartoons, the first thing that crossed my mind was child pornography but I certainly agree that's a serious reason to make more radical bans and I'm not one that would ban mere possesion of blasphemous material. I'd say the same about the other aspects of the cartoons. Likewise not a good thing if KKK members hold "F the Ns" material amongst themselves but I wouldn't order search warrants for it except as evidence concerning something more serious.

 

However, we can't tell Malaysia how to make it's laws either, can we? Else I could rant that American law should be the way I think it should!!!!! :) More seriously, I think it's also harmful to confuse all of perhaps a third of the world's population with the terrorists and we still keep hearing this, here in this thread. It is harmful, not only to Muslims, and I'm against the liberty to foment this type of thing.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Did you perhaps take Tormod's pre-emptive strike as being a reply to something I had said?

 

Sorry - that was directed at NKT, not you.

 

the article also states that prosecution procedes independently of any inquiry into the veridicity of the description

 

Yeah, I had heard that it works that way in the UK, and that furthermore, people accused of libel aren't entitled to public defenders, or whatever they call it in Britain. I guess it's a cultural difference how entirely WRONG this seems to me.

 

If you can't speak truth to power, you don't have free speech. Scary stuff.

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

I find that odd too, about the UK, here I think you have a public defender for an accusation of any felony.

 

Speak truth to power? Of course you can!!!!! :)

 

Just do it the proper, legal way. If you think Berlusconi is a thief and you can prove it, you press charges via the public prosecutor. If instead you do what a guy did a couple years or so ago, he cried out "thief!" in front of all the press cameras, that ain't the way and B. had the cops identify the guy and he was eventually sentenced. Somewhat risibly, he had to compensate B. with....... :hihi:... €500!!!! (LMAO)

[TheFaithfulStone]

I find that odd too, about the UK, here I think you have a public defender for an accusation of any felony.

 

Speak truth to power? Of course you can!!!!! :)

 

Just do it the proper, legal way. If you think Berlusconi is a thief and you can prove it, you press charges via the public prosecutor. If instead you do what a guy did a couple years or so ago, he cried out "thief!" in front of all the press cameras, that ain't the way and B. had the cops identify the guy and he was eventually sentenced. Somewhat risibly, he had to compensate B. with....... :hihi:... €500!!!! (LMAO)

 

;)

 

You're telling my that libel is a criminal matter?!! Even in the UK it's a civil matter, same in the US. Prosecutors simply don't get involved mostly over here. And generally, public figures must prove that anything said against them was said with 'actual malice'. That is, that a statement of fact made about them was made with the intent to harm their reputation, and that the defendant willfully ignored facts.

 

And in the US, persuing libel judgments in anything other than the most slanderous of case will win you nothing but enemies. So, even though George Bush could have sued someone who called him a theif in the public square, it would do him more harm than good. You have to have published something that is not only outright false, but has basically ZERO political ramifications. If you could defend at all your opinion that George Bush was a theif, you could get away with it.

 

Personally, I find Italian defamation laws terrifyingly oppressive. But then, as an American, I believe the First Amendment is guaranteed by God-On-High, and will brook no discontent as to it's infallibility. I think fundamentally the whole cartoon thing is a cultural clash.

 

American's believe, as a matter of course, that we have a god-given right to say what ever the hell we we want, and you can't do anything about it. Muslims believe that noone ever, should ever show a picture of the Prophet, and that noone ever should ever be allowed to do that.

 

Personally, given the state of the Islamic world, versus the state of the West, I think I'm gonna have to side with free speech on this one.

 

Personally, I find American culture fascinating, and since I'm married to an anthropologist, I get to look at it from outside occasionally. We do have some ... interesting ... ideas about the world - like that people just shouldn't get their feelings hurt if we say something they don't like. Stick and stones, after all.

 

TFS

[C1ay]

Another cartoon this thread reminds me of....

 

[Pyrotex]

Good..

 

Lets all hold hands and sing 'Kumbayah'!! :)

...not since I was in choir in the seventh grade.

Eeeeyyyeeewwwww!!! :hihi:

 

These Mohammed cartoons remind me of a Jesus cartoon I saw years ago. Had me in stitches for hours. Showed Jesus nailed to a cross, with another guy crucified to the cross next to him. They were both bleeding rivers of blood from hands, feet, sides. The other guy was looking panicked.

 

Jesus was grinning at him, and saying:

 

Hey, dude, it doesn't get any better than this!!!!!!! :eek:

[C1ay]

If Jyllands-Posten made them mad I wonder what they'll think of the satire over at Fark.com.

[Qfwfq]

:eek2:

I don't find it oppressive at all Faith, and I'll say it's not as if the law is applied every time someone calls someone a name or two, it takes either a serious case, or paying your lawyer to shove it under a prosecutor's nose until he gives up and tries to get it over with. That's probably how it was in Berlusconi's case and I don't believe he got a great advantage out of it. What I can tell you for sure is, satire programs were repeating the videos of him ranting and raving and insisting that the police officers identify the guy, actually that's how I first knew about it, from a satire program. He was in quite a state and I got the impression it was in the corridor of a court building. More recently I just happened to see a small piece in a paper about the sentence.

 

Anyway, over here many people also disapprove of those that use less than civil attitudes for politial purposes. If a politician is suspected of embezzlement or something, the civil way is investigation and prosecution, not slander.

 

I think one purpose of such a law is public order, it'll certainly be applied if it contributed other serious events ensuing. I also believe that in some cases harm can be serious, eithr when other people's opinions really are unjustly influenced, causing the person serious trouble, or when it succeeds in impairing self-esteem. I personally know there are such cases, when circumstances and methods enable it to have a serious effect. It can be a criminal instrument, and it is considered a factor in some cases of torture.

 

Sure only physical harm is criminal? I hope what you claim about slander isn't quite true, it wouldn't be a reason for me to admire American law and justice.

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Are you quite sure all Americans consider it a God-given right? I'm sure many of them consider it a civil right but not God-given. Actually, it was the people that demanded the bill of rights after the draft was proposed and up for ratification, else it wouldn't be an amendment, would it?

 

I certainly agree with free speach but compatibly with other rights. I honestly don't see why these rights should include something as hardly civil as damaging someone's dignity, any more than I'd want my right of freedom to include assault and battery, rape, molestation, harassment or importuny. Where fundamental rights touch, and say ouch to each other, I believe one should concentrate on the intent behind electing each right. In this note I found "I think they regarded a free press as almost a fourth branch of government, constantly keeping tabs on the government's activities and actions." quite significant and valid also, IMV, for free speach. Anyway, back to the distinction: Does abridging mean only cencorship? Or does it also mean no liability? The first paragraph of this note is relevant to this thread to, where it mentions tolerance, and I don't think it means tolerating those of other religions that offend yours.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Are you quite sure all Americans consider it a God-given right? I'm sure many of them consider it a civil right but not God-given. Actually, it was the people that demanded the bill of rights after the draft was proposed and up for ratification, else it wouldn't be an amendment, would it?

 

Well, maybe not 100%, but I'd say a majority, yes, think it is their God Given right to say what they want when they want. Notice that the text of the amendment does not establish the freedom of the press, but prohibits Congress from making any laws abridging it. The right to freedom of expression exists independent of any government guarantee thereof. We consider this right part of the natural human condition, and only make exceptions to it where it helps society. (Thus libel and slander are matters over which you can sue.)

 

Most Americans don't consider the Bill of Rights to GRANT them rights, but to DENY the government the power to abridge certain rights.

 

And yes, as far as criminal libel goes, it mostly does not exist. There are a few states that have criminal libel laws, but mostly libel and slander are civil matters. IANAL, but as far as I am aware, the only criminal limitations on free speech are matters of National Security and things which cause direct physical harm to someone or disturb the public peace / endager the physical well being of people. (Incitement to Riot, for instance.)

 

And, yeah, we really do expect people to shut up and take it if we say something they don't like. They are perfectly able to say something we don't like right back. Like I said, George W. Bush could sue someone for calling him a theif, but not only would he have to prove that it wasn't true, that it was a matter of false facts, and not just opinion, and that it was said with malicious intent, AND that it COULD be true, and was not obviously hyperbole, then he'd have to fight the court of public opinion, which holds that political figures rarely have a right to not be slandered.

 

Ann Coulter, for instance (she's a resident right-winger) used to claim that Chelsea Clinton (Bill's daughter) was illegitimate. If memory serves, I believe she was the one who implied that Hillary Clinton had had a sex change operation.

 

Obviously, not true. But Hillary never sued her for libel, and if she had, she might have won, but in the long run, she would have lost.

 

It's kind of a fundamental precept of American culture that "Stick and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you." Of course, once you get old enough to understand, you get taught that's not always true - but still, the idea if someone says something you don't like that you either live with it or say something back...

 

BTW, obviously assault, rape, etc fail the test of physical harm, so they are pretty obviously out the window.

 

We have saying, attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes "The right to swing my fist begins where the other mans nose begins." There are a few concepts inherent in there - A) That you have the right to swing your fist, even though it's dangerous, as long as there isn't a nose in the way. :eek2: That the contact with the nose is what ends the right, not somebody's worry that you MIGHT contact their nose. C)That noses have the right to end fist swinging, not brick walls - that is, if I'm punching a brick wall, and you don't like it (because it's obviosuly bad for me) ... tough. It's not bothering YOU. And D)That actual harm or the demonstration of it's inevitablity or intent is required before the exercise of a right can be limited. E)That noses and fists don't mix. :)

 

My position has only be crystallized by the continued reaction of the Muslim world to these cartoons. Cartoons! For crying out loud, it's a cartoon. I was willing to back away, and say something along the lines of "Well, we may have the right to publish these things, but we really shouldn't because they're terribly insensitive." But now - I'm not so sure. Now I almost feel like we've exposed such a hideous cancer of violence and anti-human attitudes, that not only was publishing the cartoons vaugely permissible, but necessary.

 

Attitudes like "Insult my God, I kill your family!" are incompatible with human dignity and freedom. I take that much more seriously than some insensitive Dutch rabble-rousers.

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

If Jyllands-Posten made them mad I wonder what they'll think of the satire over at Fark.com.

 

Holy mackerel. The one with Green Acres? Youch. That offends me

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

And, yeah, we really do expect people to shut up and take it if we say something they don't like. They are perfectly able to say something we don't like right back.

Apart from your slight contradiction, I don't find it the most appropriate attitude. Mostly, it's no use at all for serious cases. I fail to see the Clinton stuff being pertinent and I think you must have missed what I said about the Berlusconi episode that I discussed.

 

BTW, obviously assault, rape, etc fail the test of physical harm, so they are pretty obviously out the window.

I didn't mean to include assault and battery in the "no physical harm" category but other things are or can be, including rape which is mainly psychological devastation. In some cases it isn't physical damage at all, but it's devastating.

 

No law against dangerous things, in order to prevent damage? Can the guy in the apartment below you keep his place chock full of explosives, night and day, while you and your family are sleeping? I suppose you'll say you can always move but that isn't the point.

 

Things you say don't describe my idea of justice. :eek2: We simply disagree.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Can the guy in the apartment below you keep his place chock full of explosives, night and day, while you and your family are sleeping?

 

I see what you're saying here. We have laws about who can get dynamite, so why not laws about who can get free speech - obviously, they are both dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

And it's entirely different than rape, that's not even in the same category. Rape, molestation, those kinds of things are a denial of agency, not of harm. They pyschological suffering of rape victims are (legally) unimportant. It isn't the infliction of suffering that makes rape a crime, it's the denial of free action. You can get screwed up pyschologically by having perfect legal, consensual sex.

 

In fact, that brings up for me an interesting point. What the Muslim World is doing is trying to deny freedom of expression by means of a threat - basically "If you do something I don't like, I will harm you." This denies the freedom of some other actor to do as they please. By contrast, the statement of Jyllands-Posten (apparently "Your God is stupid.") do not constrain the actions of the Muslim Community.

 

As for the Bill Clinton thing - I was merely trying to illustrate the difference in Italian and American libel laws and attitudes. Clearly - saying that your daughter is a bastard(ette?) and your wife was once a man could be construed as being slanderous - just like being called a theif (or a murderer in Clinton's case.) In the US, not only would it have been difficult for a Clinton to win that case, it would have been a public relations nightmare for them to prosecute it.

 

:eek2: I'm not asking you to agree with me Q - (well, a little, but I'm not asking you to change your whole worldview.) I'm just hoping that you don't see me as the stereotypical arrogant American. (not that I'm not arrogant, but still.)

 

Americans don't hurt people's feelings because they're mean, or because they don't care - it's just an aspect of our society - we figure that it's too difficult to make sure that no-ones feelings aren't hurt, or worldviews offended. We just decided that we should all count on being offended all the time. Not all Americans think like this. There are a fair amount of people on both the left and right who think that certain opinions should not be expressed "for the common good." But you'll find that it's exceedingly rare that the level of discourse (on a political level) reaches the "You've offended me, and now I'm going to kill you, imprison you, gag you, etc." phase. We either accept the offense, and offend right back, or we accept the offense and move on.

 

Various other western democracies hold this view, to varying degrees of severity. I do have to say though, that I've never really encountered another culture where the phrase "brutally honest" is meant as a complement.

 

TFS

[Qfwfq]

Actually Faith, our was initially a question about crime without material damage, that's all that I meant about explosives (your mention of danger before damage occurs), and your pov on rape is also a damage that isn't material. I disagree with the comparison between distress possible from consentious sex and that from rape, typically far more serious.

 

You mention another example with no material damage: threat. I realized yesterday I had left it out, :eek2: when it's very pertinent to this whole thread!

 

Before an embassy had been torched, "we" were already ranting and raving about the reactions to the cartoons, free press and territorial jurisdiction and this thread had just started too, what had the protesters done so far? Threats, and shooting into the air, with no material damage and not in our territory. I more and more see it as a question of two weights and two measures.

 

We hold free speach sacred, many hold religion sacred. Many hold them both, or understand that both may be valued. Sacred vs. sacred. Threats of violence vs. yet more fomenting of hatred and harassment against a billion or more people.

 

The burnt embassy was the first thing to dismay me more than arrogant journalists, the second was the people killed, but I'm still waiting for someone here to say how many of the casualties in connection to the cartoons were western or Christian and killed by the demonstrators or by the terrorists. Considering it was terrorists that were stirring up the protests, I still say the reaction has so far been measured, although violent.

 

Anyway Faith, I'm not at all sure that saying and your wife was once a man is slanderous, what's wrong with a trans? Saying your offspring is a bastard, much like calling your wife a whore, could in many cases cause violent reaction and this IMV is one purpose of it being in criminal code. You seemed yesterday to say I'd confused the matter with "incitement to riot" but that wasn't what I meant at all, I meant more like the white glove kind of thing.

 

Not all Americans think like this. There are a fair amount of people on both the left and right who think that certain opinions should not be expressed "for the common good." But you'll find that it's exceedingly rare that the level of discourse (on a political level) reaches the "You've offended me, and now I'm going to kill you, imprison you, gag you, etc." phase.

I should jolly well hope so.

 

But I really don't believe tit for tat is an appropriate response to something less than civil. Lex talionis is cited as a principal of proportionality, but eye for eye is barbarian and even the ancient Romans eventually replaced it with finis. There's a mentality over here too, about calling a spade a spade, brutal honesty exists here but I think it is one thing while slander and the likes are another and confusing the terrorists with the Muslims isn't brutal honesty. If you think so, be more informed.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Let me reboot for a second. Since you and I appear to be the only people still beating this horse -

 

I'm not saying that you can say anything you want, whenever you want without consequences or liability. I'm saying that whether or not your speech offends someone is an impossible test to pass. The original point was not whether or not rape should be covered under the auspices of free speech (I'm not sure how we got there.)

 

My original point was that if you didn't say anything unless it wouldn't offend anyone, that you couldn't ever say anything - and that that wasn't free speech at all because it privledges the expression of one opinion over the expression of another. I found your statement that there should be legal limits on offensive speech terribly frightening. I don't think I've ever defended threats of violence, incitment to riot, or false and malicious slander as free speech (although I have pointed out that the US has a much higher standard (lower standard?) for "false and malicious" and that some misunderstanding was sure to arise there.)

 

My main point was that I DO have the right to offend you, and you DO NOT have the right to not be offended.

 

I think you and I disagree on this fundamental precept. You think that people have the right to not be offended. I say that thinking this is paramount to revoking free speech.

 

So, unless I've misrepresented your opinion somehow (which I don't think I have) or I've accidentally argued something that I didn't mean to argue (which is perfectly likely) I think that's where it stands.

 

In other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is too it. ;) ;)

 

TFS

[with tounge in cheek for that last part]

 

PS - I don't think there's anything wrong with Hillary being a transexual - but it was certaintly MEANT as an insult, and it's almost certaintly untrue.

[Qfwfq]

(I'm not sure how we got there.)

Neither am I!!!!! Rape has nothing to do with free speech, it's only one of many examples of a serious crime, even when no material damage is involved. ;)

 

My original point was that if you didn't say anything unless it wouldn't offend anyone, that you couldn't ever say anything

But I don't support the first clause.

 

I didn't think you had defended threats of violence, incitment to riot, or false and malicious slander as free speech. ;)

 

My main point was that I DO have the right to offend you, and you DO NOT have the right to not be offended.

You could say many unkind things over here, call me immature, dumb, lazy or things that I might appreciate even less, but are nothing but opinions for which you couldn't be convicted. I know from a lawyer friend that they disregard any charges where there have been no serious consequences, and there are many less than kind terms that just don't count.

 

One may say something with intention to offend, yet it might not be slander.

 

and it's almost certaintly untrue.

How sure are you? ;)

 

Saying a woman used to be a man isn't like calling her a whore or something, just because a few people might be prejudiced about transexuals.

 

In other words, I'm right, you're wrong, and that's all there is too it. ;) ;)

 

And maybe we should call it a day, but please don't think that criminal law here is oppressive. Its past the scope of the thread too.