Muhammed drawings and free speech

[ughaibu]

I dont see what these cartoons did to further the cause of free speech. Rather than any relaxing of restrictions, I think tighter controls are a more likely outcome of this affair.

[Qfwfq]

Exactly where did I say this?

A few lines down the same post, as well as previously. You had even said especially since it was in Scandinavia and not in Muslim countries.

 

I do seriously believe that not every response can be predicted, yes.

But a response to this could be predicted.

 

This also works the other way round: If someone is waiting for a chance to cause problems, they will find it.

Which is why it's easy to find trouble.

 

I don't see it as Islamophobia.

I don't see it as a free speach issue. :Waldo:

 

I see no point in any media insisting on publishing the cartoons and failing to defuse the situation. One thing that crossed my mind after reading Boerseun's post yesterday: Would you put your right of free speech to the test by pretending to be an apartheid nostalgic and standing on a street downtown Soweto calling for it to be reinstated? Theoretically, you would have every right to do it, wouldn't you? You might even ask Voltaire to come along for support.

[Boerseun]

Would you put your right of free speech to the test by pretending to be an apartheid nostalgic and standing on a street downtown Soweto calling for it to be reinstated? Theoretically, you would have every right to do it, wouldn't you? You might even ask Voltaire to come along for support.

Actually, yes, I would, if inclined to do so.

 

Every now and then there's a new political slogan designed to piss South Africans off - and they discriminate equally. The whites got up in arms about the ANC Youth League having a new marching song which goes "Kill the Boer, kill the Farmer". A Boer being a white, Afrikaans-speaking (me) South African. In other words, "kill the whites". And the judge chucked it out of court saying that everybody had the right to say as they please. That is also why the right-wing AWB (SA's own Neo-Nazis!) haven't been banned by our black majority government, either. They enjoy freedom of speech and freedom of association.

 

So, the noise died down, and the ANCYL stopped using the slogan because it's in bad taste, and didn't rock the boat. The same could've happened to these cartoons. They would've died a silent death in the archives of obscure, tasteless and not-very-artistic cartoons.

[Qfwfq]

I don't find what you say surprising Boerseun. I'd like to see one of those AWBs enjoying his freedom of speach in a bar full of blacks that were having their evening's fill.

 

AFAIK nobody had ever organized terror cells among those people giving them kalashnikovs and so on. The song is however something not to be neglected. Formally it's an instigation to crime and I think that courts in many countries, here included, would not have recognized the grounds of free speech.

 

BTW, democracy doesn't mean the right to be as arrogant as one pleases. Along with free speach it means respecting others and getting along with them. It also means not disturbing the public order and peace. The reason democracies value free speach and free press is that the lack thereof is typical of a regime. Some limitations are suitable and don't bring on a regime.

 

I don't see how Jyllands-Posten, and others, can seriously stand on grounds of democracy as an excuse. Very feeble.

[Tormod]

A few lines down the same post, as well as previously. You had even said especially since it was in Scandinavia and not in Muslim countries.

 

I can't find it. I may have said that I support their right to publish it. What is "right" and "wrong" in this issue is apparently a moral issue, and according to Danish and Norwegian law it should be settled in court, not by burning down embassies.

 

But a response to this could be predicted.

 

A response, yes. Which response, no.

 

But - how do you explain that it took four months from the cartoons were published until the reactions first came?

 

Which is why it's easy to find trouble.

 

Ping pong.

 

I don't see it as a free speach issue. :Waldo:

 

Ping pong.

 

I see no point in any media insisting on publishing the cartoons and failing to defuse the situation.

 

But they apparently do. Some of the editors are risking their lives doing it. Why?

 

One thing that crossed my mind after reading Boerseun's post yesterday: Would you put your right of free speech to the test by pretending to be an apartheid nostalgic and standing on a street downtown Soweto calling for it to be reinstated? Theoretically, you would have every right to do it, wouldn't you? You might even ask Voltaire to come along for support.

 

I would not do that, and I fail to see the similarity. I would never pretend to support something I don't. I have never said I support the content of the drawings. I support the freedom to publish them. Sorry if this distinction is unclear.

 

Are you trying to say I am personally responsible for every reaction that comes out of the publishing of the cartoons?

 

Maybe someone needs to follow their own advice and read some history books.

[Chacmool]

I don't find what you say surprising Boerseun. I'd like to see one of those AWBs enjoying his freedom of speach in a bar full of blacks that were having their evening's fill.

 

AFAIK nobody had ever organized terror cells among those people giving them kalashnikovs and so on. The song is however something not to be neglected. Formally it's an instigation to crime and I think that courts in many countries, here included, would not have recognized the grounds of free speech.

Freedom of speech is not a license to be an idiot and use hate speech. I find the chant that encourages the murder of people based on their race deeply offensive, and I think our courts made a mistake in allowing it on the basis of free speech.

BTW, democracy doesn't mean the right to be as arrogant as one pleases. Along with free speach it means respecting others and getting along with them. It also means not disturbing the public order and peace. The reason democracies value free speach and free press is that the lack thereof is typical of a regime. Some limitations are suitable and don't bring on a regime.

I can't agree with you more, Q! Freedom is something that should be treasured, and applied with great care and good judgement.

[Tormod]

Talking about history lessons:

 

Iran invites cartoons on Holocaust

 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A prominent Iranian newspaper says it is going to hold a competition for cartoons on the Holocaust to test whether the West will apply the principle of freedom of expression to the Nazi genocide against Jews as it did to the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/07/iran.cartoon.ap/index.html

 

A wise move. Let's see how many embassies we can burn.

[Boerseun]

AFAIK nobody had ever organized terror cells among those people giving them kalashnikovs and so on.

Haha - actually, they have. White South Africa have been fighting a war against Soviet-trained, supplied and supported "terrorists" fighting under the ANC flag up until the day the USSR collapsed. That opened the door for SA's current democracy. These terrorists employed tactics against all civilians (whites for white's sake, blacks for not supporting them). Matter of fact, my father's law office in Natal was blown up in 1987 by these "freedom fighters", who operated almost solely on "soft targets", i.e. civilian. There are still tons of cached weapons, AK47's, landmines, limpet mines, you name it, under the control of these terrorist cells, who seem to be operating for their own profit nowadays. The police are making headway, though, and are destroying arms caches as they are found.

 

The difference is that when they came up with the song, people didn't start burning down the country. The difference is tolerance.

[whatdoiknowanyway]

There are no points to be gained by arguing amongst oneselves.

 

Take a look at what has happened.

 

One small minority from one group, claiming to speak for the majority, are condeming the majorty of another group over the actions of a very small minority of that group.

 

Hasn't it been the same throughout history?

 

Interesting times indeed.

[ughaibu]

There is a very large number of muslims, it seems to me natural to expect a wider range of reaction behaviour as the number of members of a group increases.

On the question of tolerance, the more violent reactions are among cultures that arose in harsh conditions. In such conditions, management of population and resources need strict control for a viable society. It seems natural to me that cultures of such a basis would tend to be repressive and punitively extreme.

[Chacmool]

There are still tons of cached weapons, AK47's, landmines, limpet mines, you name it, under the control of these terrorist cells, who seem to be operating for their own profit nowadays. The police are making headway, though, and are destroying arms caches as they are found.

You're making it sound as though these weapons are being found on a daily basis. When was the last time such a cache was found? And don't you think these weapons are used in the many cases of hijackings and armed robbery in South Africa? The criminals themselves admit that many of these crimes are being perpetrated by former soldiers.

The difference is that when they came up with the song, people didn't start burning down the country. The difference is tolerance.

No, the difference here is that a very small minority simply does not have the means to do anything about hate speech such as this. Not even voting will bring about much change. The difference is powerlessness.

[Cedars]

I don't see how Jyllands-Posten, and others, can seriously stand on grounds of democracy as an excuse. Very feeble.

 

One only has to remember the reaction over the book 'Satanic Verses' to understand how it stands on the grounds of democracy and freedom of speech.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_(novel)

 

Islamic absolutes regarding the treatment of the words/image of Muhammad are, by most laws of the western world, an infringment on millions of peoples rights bestowed upon them by the governments of their respective countries.

 

The government of the original country which printed these cartoons has affirmed this right of the paper which published the original cartoons. And as far as I know, the other western publications that followed up with a reprint of the cartoons are not being investigated for any crime regarding their publication of these images.

[TheFaithfulStone]

The reason democracies value free speach and free press is that the lack thereof is typical of a regime. Some limitations are suitable and don't bring on a regime.

 

I don't see how Jyllands-Posten, and others, can seriously stand on grounds of democracy as an excuse. Very feeble.

 

Well, I think that you're making a parallel here that doesn't exist. You're claiming (if I'm not mistaken) that publishing -these particular- cartoons of Mohammed is akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded room. But the thing is, the claim is that any depiction of Mohammed is off-limits to Islam, and anything "critical" of the Koran or Allah is taboo. So, by following this to it's logical conclusion, any depiction of Mohammed, or publishing anything critical of the Koran is the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded room.

 

The difference here of course is that yelling "fire" doesn't have a political agenda. The Jyllands-Posten cartoons DO have a political agenda, no matter how misguided, and are therefore protected speech.

 

We have this nutcase in the U.S. - a guy named Fred Phelps from Kansas, who, along with his little cadre of rabble rousers and hate-mongerers goes to military funerals and screams at war widows things like "Your husband was a fag-lover." And "God is glad your sodomite husband is dead." And his favorite - "God Hates Fags." (Fag is a particularly nasty US slang for homosexual.)

 

What redeeming values does this lunatic's message have? None whatsoever. And 99% of the US knows it. But, we can't shut him up - because it is political speech, and there is no where to draw the line. Once you shut someone up who 99% of people think is a lunatic - then can't we shut people up who 90% of people think is a lunatic. What about 85% - 70%? 60%? 51%?

 

I'm not denying that the Danish cartoons are certainly in poor taste - but the fact of the matter is that it isn't radical environmentalists or neo-nazi's blowing up subway trains and pizza parlors, it's Muslims - so regardless of how misguided the message his, there is a message. And western democracies can't stop people from saying what they think, no matter how repugnant or stupid it may be.

 

We can stop personal attacks and libel, incitement to violence, and outright lies about matters of fact - but a picture of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban isn't any of those things.

 

So, we find ourselves in the same position democracies ALWAYS find themselves in free speech issues. A four sided debate. People on one side of the debate saying "Shut that man up because he is offensive to me!" Someone else yelling to shut him up because his opinions have no value other than offending person A. People on the other side saying "I agree with him! Turn up his mic!" and a few people saying that even idiots have a right to talk.

 

Which they do. Which is both unfortunate, and comforting.

 

TFS

 

[PS - Any Danes planning on beating up some Muslims in the park for the insult to their queen? I'm sure there are a few. See - humanity does have a common trait! Our uncommon stupidity!]

[Qfwfq]

A response, yes. Which response, no.

A violent one.

 

But - how do you explain that it took four months from the cartoons were published until the reactions first came?

I guess it took a while. What do you make of it?

 

My guess is that Jyllands-Post had plenty of time to ponder, instead they chose arrogance. I defend free speach, not arrogance.

 

My ping pong was deliberate.

 

Some of the editors are risking their lives doing it. Why?

I guess they believe in peace. La Padania certainly does, I had a brief look at their editorial that came with the cartoons.

:Waldo:

 

I would not do that, and I fail to see the similarity. I would never pretend to support something I don't. I have never said I support the content of the drawings. I support the freedom to publish them. Sorry if this distinction is unclear.

The distinction is clear. I wasn't telling you to do something I was making a point. Put youself in the place of an AWB.

 

Are you trying to say I am personally responsible for every reaction that comes out of the publishing of the cartoons?

No, I'm not saying that at all.

[Qfwfq]

Boerseun, Chacmool says the essence of what I was going to reply, and I'd say it's been a while since Russian influence there. I admit I wasn't informed of it I only said AFAIK.

 

The Jyllands-Posten cartoons DO have a political agenda, no matter how misguided, and are therefore protected speech.

Political agenda? I guess, if you consider racism etc. a political agenda. Over here there are laws against this type o thing and I'm disappointed they aren't already being mentioned about La Padania, the paper here that published the cartoons.

 

Fag is a particularly nasty US slang for homosexual

No, not US slang, I think it's British, certainly used in both places.

[ughaibu]

In the UK 'fag' normally means a cigarette.

[InfiniteNow]

How is a mass of 6 billion people across the planet being held hostage by a group as small as maybe a million? It's always confused me how a group of a 6000 people would let themselves be held captive by one person... (that's the percentage here...)

Read history and be more informed.

I've done a fair amount of reading in my day, but I still fail to see why we generally do not group together to move past the fear induced by others. That's all it takes. Stop letting the fear control us and change will occur. Fear is an evolved mechanism that helped us survive in our evolutionary past, but which is used now (and for millenia) to control masses. My point was, when are we going to stop letting ourselves be herded like cattle and take control away from the fear mongering shepherds?