Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

[rory_20_uk]

After reading the Quran, leaving aside the fact that it is extremely repetative and factually incorrect in places, it is also incredably intolerant of my existance: according to it I will:

Go to hell
Be blind, deaf and dumb
Have my skin burnt off, and then replaced so I can feel more pain
Be killed by believers
And loads more about doom, fire and pain.

Funnily enough, Allah doesn't live me as a disbeliever. But then seeing what happens to those he does live, I think I'm better off his radar.

How we can square that circle when they believe a book that is riddled with such cover to cover hatred for, well, at times everything (yes, God has it in for every animal on the planet when he ges annoyed) I've no idea.

The old Testament is as bad, but at least christians love to turn to the new message in the New Testament which is considerably less blood soaked.

The cartoons do not help the communities get along, but looking at the source text, it does say on many occasions that non believers should all be killed, and this is the duty of all followers of Islam.

~:smoking:

[Redleg]

If anyone is interested Wikipedia has put both the paper and the cartoons into its works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

[Brenus]

I read that when I was in Bosnia, and I founded it interesting. I give toy you few ideas from a so-called moderate Muslims.

"... Muslim nations will never accept anything that is explicitly against Islam, because Islam here is not merely a faith and the law, Islam has become love and compassion. He who rises against Islam will reap nothing but hate and resistance. ..."

"... The shortest definition of the Islamic order defines it as a unity of faith and law, upbringing and force, ideals and interests, spiritual community and state, free will and force. As a synthesis of these components, the Islamic order has two fundamental premises: an Islamic society and Islamic authority. The former is the essence, and the latter the form of an Islamic order. An Islamic society without Islamic power is incomplete and weak; Islamic power without an Islamic society is either a utopia or violence.

"... The first and foremost of such conclusions is surely the one on the incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems. There can be no peace or coexistence between the "Islamic faith" and non- Islamic societies and political institutions. ... Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf. Therefore, there is no question of any laicistic principles, and the state should be an expression and should support the moral concepts of the religion. ..."

"... Establishing of an Islamic order is thus shown as the ultimate act of democracy, because it means the implementation of the deepest desires of the Muslim nations and common man. One thing is certain: no matter what a part of the rich and the intelligence wants, the common man wants Islam and living in his Islamic community. ..."

"... the Islamic movement should and must start taking over the power as soon as it is morally and numerically strong enough to not only overthrow the existing non-Islamic, but also to build up a new Islamic authority. ...":balloon2:

"... We would like to distinguish between Jews and Zionists, but only if Jews themselves find strength to find the difference. We hope that the military victories, which they had against quarrelling Arab regimes, (not against Arabs or against Muslims) will not blur their minds. We hope that they will eliminate confrontation which they made by them- selves, so the new road is open to a life on the common ground of Palestine. If they, though, continue on the road of arrogance, which is more likely, then for the whole Islam movement, and FOR ALL MUSLIMS THERE IS BUT ONE SOLUTION: TO CONTINUE TO FIGHT, TO STRENGTHEN AND BROADEN IT, FROM DAY TO DAY, FROM YEAR TO YEAR, NO MATTER THE VICTIMS AND NO MATTER THE TIME it may last, until they are forced to RETURN EVERY INCH OF THE OCCUPIED LAND. EVERY NEGOTIATION AND EVERY COMPROMISE ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE FOR OUR BROTHERS IN PALESTINE WILL BE A TREASON WHICH MAY DESTROY THE VERY CORE OF THE MORAL SYSTEM OF OUR WORLD.:oops:
These are not new laws of our new Islam politics toward Christians and Jews, not new laws dictated by the new political situation. They are just the practical conclusions taken from the Islamic recognition of Christians and Jews which come right from the Koran (Koran, 29/45, 2/136, 5/47-49)

And the best one, for the actual subject:
"... The upbringing of the nation, and especially the mass media - the press, TV and film - should be in the hands of people whose Islamic moral and intellectual authority is undisputed. ...

Alija Izetbegovic, Islamic Declaration, first published in 1970, then reprinted in 1990 in Sarajevo (by Mala Muslimanska Biblioteka).
Considered as a Moderate by the Western powers during the war in Balkans:dizzy2:

[Soulforged]

You missed it completely Soulforged. Your not focusing on the personal responsiblity that is inherient in Freedom. Notice the beginning of the article where it talks about rIghts as mentioned. It seems your focusing on the legal definition for court about responsibility but not on the ethical.Though your separation is discussable, I've never focused on that, I'm still waiting for the kind of response you wish.

To meet the standard of legal responsibility one has to prove intent is linked to the consequence of the free speech. Ethical issues do not have to meet that same standard. Acting irresponsible does not always have legal consequences.I don't ask for legal consequences or legal obligations, what I need is a response, any, that you think they should give, so we can see if you're being reasonable.

Your bolded the part about response but not responsibility.What is responsability without a response? You don't have responsability, you have responsability to do something, to respond in some way, the response is essential.

Actually you don't get it. Every right has a responsibility, Freedom requires an individual to be responsibile for his actions. Personal responsiblity is not a legal definition but a ethical situation.Again, why they didn't respond? They did respond, to their obligation of free speech.

Not at all. Notice what I have stated - not what you think I am stating.Try not to take this as an offense Red. First I've read all your posts and never saw those questions answered clearly. Second I ask for answers and you give the usual dodgy response of "go back and see what I posted".

Journalists must have a code of ethics to insure they are reporting factual information as news. Everything is else is editorials. Journalists have an ethical responsibility. Yellow Journalism is irresponsible journalism.What factual information are you talking about Red? Is a DRAWING, there's nothing factual, as usual in an humoristic cartoon. This is not informative, is an statement of persuation at the best. They're not informing about anything, nor the appearence of an ancient idol, nor the appearence of an actual stereotype. If you take it as informative, then you'll always disagree with it.

THe cheesy links actually give you the answer you are looking for. However it seems you are unwilling to learn that responsibility is something that everyone must face when exercising everyday life, and yes even when exercising the Freedoms that you cherish.I'm not saying that you don't. But the problem is that I need to know what kind of response first. And also we don't appear to be talking about the same subject, you talk about information, I'm talking about humor.

[Redleg]

I'm not saying that you don't. But the problem is that I need to know what kind of response first. And also we don't appear to be talking about the same subject, you talk about information, I'm talking about humor.

And there is the reason why you don't understand.

[Soulforged]

And there is the reason why you don't understand.
Ok Red, I might understand why after almost 8000 posts you may be tired of giving substance to them, but it wouldn't hurt to let me know where I misunderstand you. Are you saying that humor is information, and therefore this journalists have misinformed the people in an attempt of Yellow Journalism?

[Redleg]

Ok Red, I might understand why after almost 8000 posts you may be tired of giving substance to them, but it wouldn't hurt to let me know where I misunderstand you. Are you saying that humor is information, and therefore this journalists have misinformed the people in an attempt of Yellow Journalism?

Humor when published in a news paper is meant to inform the audience of the content of that humor.

[Soulforged]

Humor when published in a news paper is meant to inform the audience of the content of that humor.
You've a basic misunderstanding of language (in general, nothing to do with translation) or perhaps just a disagree of principles. Well Red, I fear my possition is irreconcilable with yours, at least in this subject. For what I know an informative enunciation decribes facts and only that. A persuasive enunciation tends to express any kind of message but with the purpose of generating actitudes in others, that's what humor does, at least to me.

[Divinus Arma]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/17/D8FR44IO0.html


A Pakistani cleric announced a $1 million bounty for killing a cartoonist who drew the Prophet Muhammad as thousands joined street protests after Friday prayers.


And why did the Libyans attack an Italian consulate?


This seems like the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back!

[BHCWarman88]

they need to get over it. We can't help it in the Western World they never got expose to Freedom of Speech. they don't like cartons of Mohammd?? I understand why, cuz I won't like to see someone make a cartoon of Jesus doing something ( I never saw the cartoon,like to see what the mohammd cartoon looked like though) but if someone Drew Jesus smoking a pipe,or something, I'll be Mad, but I'm not going to burn down that State or Country's Flag and Burn Clothes from their country in Protest..

[Strike For The South]

I have three letters for these peoplehttps://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8285/wtf1bm.th.png (https://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wtf1bm.png)

[Divinus Arma]

Picture is here:

***WARNING: OFFENSIVE TO THE MUSLIM RELIGION. IF YOU ARE MUSLIM AND VIEW THIS, YOU MAY BE VIOLATING RELGIOuS COMMANDS***

http://www.uriasposten.net/pics/JP-011005-Muhammed-Westerga.jpg

[BHCWarman88]

I won't and not anyhow,
I'm Protestnat..

[Adrian II]

Today over 10.000 Muslims have been demonstrating against free speech in London. Although angry and interspersed with idiotic slogans and demands, this protest at least seems to have been peaceful until now. That is an improvement. It is a huge setback however if you consider they should be demonstrating against Osama bin Laden instead. Another black day for democracy. :no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Today over 10.000 Muslims have been demonstrating against free speech in London. Although angry and interspersed with idiotic slogans and demands, this protest at least seems to have been peaceful until now. That is an improvement. It is a huge setback however if you consider they should be demonstrating against Osama bin Laden instead. Another black day for democracy. :no:No. A good day for democracy and western values. They are in turn exercizing their right to free speech. In mostly peaceful manner.

I cannot relate to the reactions of most European Muslims - a cartoon is a cartoon, lighten up, look the other way. And if you can't help being offended, take it to court.
In a pluralistic society, one is bound to disagree or be offended with a whole lot of what other people do or write. Deal with it. On the upside, pluralism in turn gives you the right to live your life the way you personally see fit, it's none of anybody's business. It's the core of western freedom and vibrancy.

This time, I have little complaints about the behaviour of western Muslims. An overwhelming majority does seem to have dealt with it, or has at least understood the western line of reasoning. All of the ones I've spoken with in the last two weeks have been very offended and dissapointed. All have also, albeit grudgingly, accepted that they do not live in a theocracy.

(That, rather than accept this grudgingly, they should praise their God on their bare knees for not living in fine theocracies like Saudi-Arabia, Iran or Taliban I'll leave for another discussion)


they should be demonstrating against Osama bin Laden insteadNo. Nor should the Jyllands-Posten have posted pictures from Abu Graib instead. This line of reasoning is fruitless.
A Muslim has every right to his religious believes. If he states that Islam is the peaceful religion he claims it is, than indeed he should curse Bin Ladens name.
But Bin Laden is also just a pervert in a cave. We cannot let him hijack an entire religion. How would you have it? Should every prayer start with 'Allah is great! Oh, and down with Bin Laden!'

[Adrian II]

A good day for democracy and western values. They are in turn exercizing their right to free speech.What makes this a black day is that these 10.000 people, demonstrating in the name of Islam, show that they have all the wrong priorities.

They live in a country where they enjoy rights, personal freedoms, education and protection from starvation and disease on a level unprecendented in all but very recent human history. Do they use this position to demonstrate against real wrongs? Do they demonstrate against the war in Iraq? Against the fact that an innocent man was shot in the underground because he looked like an Arab? No, they demonstrate against free speech.

They have the right to demonstrate in this way, sure. And I have every right to call theirdemonstration extremely stupid and politically immature.

If anything, they should stand up for the brave Jordanian journalists who printed some of the Danish cartoons to let their readers know what the fuzz was about, and who wrote in a leader: "Which is worse for Islam, these cartoons or the TV images of Iraqi mujahedin beheading their hostages?” And who are now in a Jordanian jail.

That is the question, my friend. And the answer we see in the London streets is wrong.

I think I know why there are no protests against Bin Laden in these circles. That is because the threat of Bin Laden and his followers, the threat of further conversions to his concept of jihad, and the threat of further unrest if their demands are not met if, give Muslims in Western society leverage over that society. Maybe Navaros is right about this. Never underestimate the criminal downside of organised religion.

[rory_20_uk]

They are excersising their free speech by demanding that the right to free speech should effectively be taken away from others. Personally I don't see that as particularly positive.

~:smoking:

[Meneldil]

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé (http://haifawehbe.free.fr/)'s concert in Oman (a country of 3 millions inhabitants).

A good day for Humanity, even if Haifa Wehbé is some kind of Lebanese Jenifer Lopez.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé (http://haifawehbe.free.fr/)'s concert in Oman (a country of 3 millions inhabitants).Aah, the Leban and Haifa. The secret backdoor passageway for the western concept of 'fun' into the Arab world. :2thumbsup:

But I think Adrian thinks those 220.000 Arabs should be busy staging mass protests for obscure Jordanian journalists instead. :sneaky:

[Meneldil]

After seeing pics and videos of the lady, I wonder how it is possible she was allowed to perform in a concert in Oman. I mean, she's damn hot :dizzy2:

Well, at least we know Middle East isn't totally doomed.

[Adrian II]

But I think Adrian thinks those 220.000 Arabs should be busy staging mass protests for obscure Jordanian journalists instead. :sneaky:Woof! If anyone can get those journalists freed, it's her! Eat your heart out, Natacha Atlas..

[bmolsson]

It is talked about responsibility and freedom of speech. For pure freedom of speech this is impossible. The right to speak your mind will always infringe on the individuals right and responsibility require actions from the individual, which in turn will require resources to do so.
In the case of the cartoons, the paper used it's right to publish them, but did not take responsibility over the consequences. The Danish nation is now punished for these cartoons. You can argue that the reactions among muslims around the world is insane and irrational, but you can also argue that they are using their right to freedom of speech. This freedom of speech instigate riots and civil unrest. In the end, this is not a battle between civilisations, it's only mob politics, commonly used in third world and we Europeans can't really understand it's mechanism. The cartoons are only used to feed the mob and create a mob, which can be moved in desired direction.

What surprise me most is that there don't seem to be anyone understanding the mob politics used by the theocrats. It would be so more easy to handle if everyone involved understood that......

[Strike For The South]

I think you are missing the point. Muslims are killing people and burning shit to the ground. The whole premise of free speech is to speak your mind peacefully so this dosent have to happen.

[Viking]

The Danish nation is now punished for these cartoons.

Exactly! What has Denmark done to deserve this punishment? Nothing else than allowing satyrical cartoons of relgions. They should of course attack Jyllands Posten, no matter the stance of the Danish goverment.

[KukriKhan]

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé (http://haifawehbe.free.fr/)'s concert in Oman (a country of 3 millions inhabitants).

A good day for Humanity, even if Haifa Wehbé is some kind of Lebanese Jenifer Lopez.

Gathering 220,000 paying music consumers, I understand; radio, TV & newspaper advertising, etc.

How are 10's of thousands of people 'spontaneously' gathered for an anti-cartoon protest/riot? Cell phones? txt'ing? Mosque pulpits? Anyone have any insight into the mechanics being used to rapidly assemble angry mobs?

[bmolsson]

I think you are missing the point. Muslims are killing people and burning shit to the ground. The whole premise of free speech is to speak your mind peacefully so this dosent have to happen.

I don't think I am missing the point at all. The responsibility that follows with freedom of speech is what I am asking for. You are not free to say what you want anywhere in the world and you have to take responsibility for what you say. Muslims in middle east have no ability to take a Danish newspaper to court or even report it to the Danish police. Their frustration is channelled in to violence, which of course is wrong, but to be expected with the current tensions between the west and the muslim world, especially the countries in the middle east.

If I know that I will create a lot pissed of people by having a competition on offensive cartoons, why would I not think twice first? If the only reason to publish the cartoons are that it's their right to do so, then it's not about freedom of speech anymore......

[bmolsson]

Gathering 220,000 paying music consumers, I understand; radio, TV & newspaper advertising, etc.

How are 10's of thousands of people 'spontaneously' gathered for an anti-cartoon protest/riot? Cell phones? txt'ing? Mosque pulpits? Anyone have any insight into the mechanics being used to rapidly assemble angry mobs?

Money. There are organisation around middle east, in fact in most developing countries, with no other purpose than create demonstrations. For the right payment they wreak havoc.
In Indonesia you can create a 10,000 people angry mob within 24 hours, as long as you have the dough...... :book:

[Adrian II]

Muslims in Middle East have no ability to take a Danish newspaper to court or even report it to the Danish police.Of course they have. Look at what you just posted.
There are organisation around Middle East, in fact in most developing countries, with no other purpose than create demonstrations. For the right payment they wreak havoc.So they can easily afford a lawsuit in Denmark, too. The fact is they don't want to, they want to sow political unrest for different purposes that have been extensively addressed in this thread and others.
If I know that I will create a lot pissed of people by having a competition on offensive cartoons, why would I not think twice first?Only one of twelved cartoons can be construed as offensive. And even in that one case, the offense is just too bad but it is not illegal or irresponsible. It adresses the fact that Osama bin Laden is allowed to hijack the Prophet. The protests that followed have only confirmed the artist's impression. Muslims burn effigies of Rasmussen and Bush, they never burn effigies of Osama bin Laden. If they were truly upset about blasphemy, they should vehemently oppose terrorism in the name of the Prophet, not boycot Danish yoghurt. They should put a price on Osama's head, not that of an artist in Denmark.

[bmolsson]

Of course they have. Look at what you just posted.So they can easily afford a lawsuit in Denmark, too. The fact is they don't want to, they want to sow political unrest for different purposes that have been extensively addressed in this thread and others.Only one of twelved cartoons can be construed as offensive. And even in that one case, the offense is just too bad but it is not illegal or irresponsible. It adresses the fact that Osama bin Laden is allowed to hijack the Prophet. The protests that followed have only confirmed the artist's impression. Muslims burn effigies of Rasmussen and Bush, they never burn effigies of Osama bin Laden. If they were truly upset about blasphemy, they should vehemently oppose terrorism in the name of the Prophet, not boycot Danish yoghurt. They should put a price on Osama's head, not that of an artist in Denmark.

Islam itself doesn't have a leader that can stand up for Islam as such. This is a huge weakness in issues like this as well as how to handle Osama and his band. The "brotherhood" within Islam is creating a perception of inactive muslims and is already creating a rift within the religion, hopefully ending with a reformation of it all.
And confusing the organisations creating the mob politics in the issue with the real muslims will not do any good at all. The money creating this mobs are for just for creating mobs and the issue itself have absolutely nothing at all to do with the cartoons.
It's a little bit like US elections and Iraq..... :laugh4:

Furthermore, there are actually a price on Osama's head in several muslims countries. And fatwa's in others.... It's just that it's local and not really perceived as islamic....... :book:

[Redleg]

I don't think I am missing the point at all. The responsibility that follows with freedom of speech is what I am asking for. You are not free to say what you want anywhere in the world and you have to take responsibility for what you say. Muslims in middle east have no ability to take a Danish newspaper to court or even report it to the Danish police. Their frustration is channelled in to violence, which of course is wrong, but to be expected with the current tensions between the west and the muslim world, especially the countries in the middle east.

I don't think your missing the point at all.



If I know that I will create a lot pissed of people by having a competition on offensive cartoons, why would I not think twice first? If the only reason to publish the cartoons are that it's their right to do so, then it's not about freedom of speech anymore......

:bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

If I know that I will create a lot pissed of people by having a competition on offensive cartoons, why would I not think twice first?You wouldn't think twice because that would boil down to mob rule. Jyllands Posten shouldn't have to care any less about people being pissed of. They need to care about the limits to free speech Danish law imposes.

In 1943, writing 'Jews shouldn't be murdered' would've pissed of a lot of people. In fact, it was so offensive, it would've got you killed. In 1600, writing that the earth is not the center of the universe would've hurt a lot of people in their religious believes. Should people have kowtowed to angry mobs back then too?

Sorry, but the angry mobs of this world shall have to pry my freedom of speech from my cold dead hands. :furious3:

[KukriKhan]

Sorry, but the angry mobs of this world shall have to pry my freedom of speech from my cold dead hands.


I believe that is the most beautiful mixed-metaphor I've ever seen :thumbsup:

unless, of course, you refer to sign-language

Back on topic: Good point, Louis.

[Redleg]

You wouldn't think twice because that would boil down to mob rule. Jyllands Posten shouldn't have to care any less about people being pissed of. They need to care about the limits to free speech Danish law imposes.

one should think before doing something to insure that what they are doing does not violate the law and does not cause others harm. WIth Freedom comes responsiblity.

Was the publication of the cartoons by the newspaper within the scope of being responsible? If the answer to the question is yes, then the paper acted within the responsiblities that coincide with the concept of freedom of speech. If the answer is no, then the paper while exercising its Freedom of Speech exercised what is called Yellow Journalism.



In 1943, writing 'Jews shouldn't be murdered' would've pissed of a lot of people. In fact, it was so offensive, it would've got you killed.

BS analogy unless of course you were in Germany at the time, or yes even Denmark. You couldn't state "Jews should be murdered" in the United States during the time period in question.



In 1600, writing that the earth is not the center of the universe would've hurt a lot of people in their religious believes. Should people have kowtowed to angry mobs back then too?

Again notice what the intent of the writing of the 1600's was - it was to inform the world at the time of a scientific theory.



Sorry, but the angry mobs of this world shall have to pry my freedom of speech from my cold dead hands. :furious3:

If Freedom of Speech is used to spread hate then what?

[KukriKhan]

You couldn't state "Jews should be murdered" in the United States during the time period in question.

We had a guy in Detroit who thought differently:
http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=43&category=people

He and Henry Ford (the auto guy) were not shy about their anti-semitism, even into the 60's.

[Louis VI the Fat]

BS analogy unless of course you were in Germany at the time, or yes even Denmark.I shall not be a drama queen and compare the contemporary world to Germany in the 30's or 40's. But, there is a valid analogy in that core western values are challenged by extremists of a totalitarian nature.

More importantly, it is not so much an analogy, as a statement of principle. That principle being that it is not the amount of violence your opponents are prepared to use to mute you that should decide whether one in right in saying something or not.

Yes, there are limits to free speech under European law. Amongst these are defamation, slander, and incitement to riot. If any Muslim, anywhere on earth, feels he's got a case based on either one or a combination of these, he can take it to court. It's that simple. (Hence the fallacy of the Muslim outcry 'limits on free speech when defaming Jews! No limits on free speech when defaming Muslims!'. In fact, both are equally forbidden. It is also equally allowed to mock both Moses and Mohammed)

Then there are limits to free speech outside of the legal sphere: decency, good taste, a certain emphaty to other people's sensitivities. While unsanctioned outside of a small social sphere, bearing these restraints in mind graces a person.

I generally try to keep both sets of limits in mind.

What I will not do, is let myself be silenced by the third set of limits: the one imposed by mob rule, by outrage by those of the lowest common denominator, by reactionary bookburners.

Alexis de Tocqueville already observed that this last limit is in fact the strongest. People are more hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government retribution, but because of fear of their community or violent reactions.

If I would somehow doubt whether these cartoons should've been published, it would be because of the second set of limits. I do not doubt however - they should be published. Indeed, for no other reason than to reassert our freedom of speech. To quote France Soir, the newspaper that published them: 'Yes, we do have the right to make caricatures of God'.


Edit: Louis has incorparated a little English lesson he just recieved!

[Redleg]

I shall not be a drama queen and compare the contemporary world to Germany in the 30's or 40's. But, there is a valid analogy in that core western values are challenged by extremists of a totalitarian nature.

Agreed - Freedom of Speech can be used for things beyond what is reasonable and good for society.



More importantly, it is not so much an analogy, as a statement of principle. That principle being that it is not the amount of violence your opponents are prepared to use to mute you that should decide whether one in right in saying something or not.

Agreed - but the principle requires one to think about their responsiblity in what they say.



Yes, there are limits to free speech under European law. Amongst these are defamation, slander, and incitement to riot. If any Muslim, anywhere on earth, feels he's got a case based on either one or a combination of these, he can take it to court. It's that simple. (Hence the fallacy of the Muslim outcry 'limits on free speech when defaming Jews! No limits on free speech when defaming Muslims!'. In fact, both are equally forbidden. It is also equally allowed to mock both Moses and Mohammed)

An attempt was made to take the issue to court back in October. It seems that it failed. Can not the Muslim community demand an apology from the paper for the unfair characterization of their religion if that is what they deem it?



Then there are limits to free speech outside of the legal sphere: decency, good taste, a certain emphaty to other people's sensitivities. While unsanctioned outside of a small social sphere, bearing these restraints in mind graces a person.

That is one of my main points regarding this issue.


I generally try to keep both sets of limits in mind.


Good



What I will not do, is let myself be silenced by the third set of limits: the one imposed by mob rule, by outrage by those of the lowest common denominator, by reactionary bookburners.

So that they attempted to go through the Danish legal system to voice their concern, is being ignored for the most part because of the outragous demonstration by a minority. What about the ruling by the Danish authorities concerning what the muslims feel to be blasamy? One drawing in particlur.



Alexis de Tocqueville already observed that this last limit is in fact the strongest. People are more hesitant to speak freely not because of fear of government retribution, but because of fear of their community or violent reactions.

One should always be against tyranny. However what happens when one group is using tyranny to protest against another group's precieved tryanny?



If I would somehow doubt whether these cartoons should've been published, it would be because of the second set of limits. I do not doubt however - they should be published. Indeed, for no other reason than to reascertain our freedom of speech. To quote France Soir, the newspaper that published them: 'Yes, we do have the right to make caricatures of God'.

Yes they do have that right, however given the nature of why they were printed, ie the contest. Did the paper exercise responsiblity in publishing those caricatures?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes they do have that right, however given the nature of why they were printed, ie the contest. Did the paper exercise responsiblity in publishing those caricatures?In vast contrast to my previous well-balanced and eloquent post:

An 'up yours' attitude is always responsible when defending freedom of expression. :book:

[Brenus]

“Iran organized an international boycott of Denmark and renamed Danish pastries, "Muhammad pastries." Remind me something, but what? About french something, food…:laugh4:

“Today over 10.000 Muslims”: That is what we call a failure!!! It is risible!!! Is it figures according the organisers or the Police? How many Muslims in the UK? More than 1,000,000? In London?:laugh4:

“In the case of the cartoons, the paper used it's right to publish them, but did not take responsibility over the consequences.” Why should they? The responsibility clearly is on the people who choose to demonstrate violently. Nobody obliged them to take weapons and cocktails Molotov… As often Redleg stated, with free expression comes responsibility. They choose this kind of answer, they are responsible for what happened, and the degradation of the Image of Islam in other countries…

“If the only reason to publish the cartoons are that it's their right to do so, then it's not about freedom of speech anymore......” So, what is it about?
:help:
“Muslims in middle east have no ability to take a Danish newspaper to court or even report it to the Danish police” What of about the Islamic Conference, or something like that, which had legal representative in all countries?

“one should think before doing something to insure that what they are doing does not violate the law and does not cause others harm. WIth Freedom comes responsiblity.” I have the right to offend all bigotries. We got this right from Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.:book:

[drone]

For those interested, here is a piece from Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section written by Flemming Rose from Jyllands-Posten. His explanation of why he published the cartoons:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

[Redleg]

In vast contrast to my previous well-balanced and eloquent post:

An 'up yours' attitude is always responsible when defending freedom of expression. :book:

That attitide runs counter to allowing other to express their opinions. It shows that you do not value their right to dissent to your speech, and it demonstrates why the issue has degraded to the point that it has.

So again I ask

Yes they do have that right, however given the nature of why they were printed, ie the contest. Did the paper exercise responsiblity in publishing those caricatures?

[Redleg]

“one should think before doing something to insure that what they are doing does not violate the law and does not cause others harm. WIth Freedom comes responsiblity.” I have the right to offend all bigotries. We got this right from Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.:book:

To the point that you yourself becomes the bigot that your wishing to offend.

How nice:oops:

[Louis VI the Fat]

nm.

how did this post end up here?

[Louis VI the Fat]

So again I ask

Yes they do have that right, however given the nature of why they were printed, ie the contest. Did the paper exercise responsiblity in publishing those caricatures?Yes, all things considered, they did.


Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate

[Adrian II]

To the point that you yourself becomes the bigot that your wishing to offend.

How nice:oops:Oh, now you're abusing people yourself. Nice way to defend your views on free speech, Redleg. Anyway, my strawman has been eating too many red herrings lately, so I'll be a hypocrite and leave you with a story.


Once upon a summer's evening Blueleg makes a stroll through the park. Underneath the Old Oak Tree he spots a man who is holding a gun to another man's head.
Blueleg: 'Well, something seems amiss here!'
Man w/ gun: 'He offended me!'
Other man: 'He was frightening the kids with his gun! I told him to put it away...'
Blueleg: 'I see. Instead of asking him nicely to put the gun away, you told him so! To his face!'
Other man: 'He was threat..'
Man w/ gun: 'Shut up!'
Blueleg: 'Shut up indeed. What you have done is...'
Pausing for a brief moment, Blueleg appears to be grasping for the right words.
Blueleg: '... is unacceptable, you see. Your irresponsible remark touched off this unpleasant incident, and now you have to face the consequences. Good day.'
Satisfied in the knowledge of having discharged his civic duty, Blueleg proceeds through the park, unperturbed by the loud bang behind his back as the brains of the offender splatter the grass underneath the Old Oak Tree. What does perturb him, a mere handful of seconds later, is the sensation of a gun barrel poking against the back of his own head.
Man w/ gun: 'And I don't like your smile either!'
Blueleg: 'What the..'
Next thing Blueleg knows, he knows no more. Which is a real pity, because at the very moment Blueleg's brains splatter the grass underneath the Old Oak Tree, they have begun to realise the true meaning of 'responsibility'.
Unacceptable, I hear you say?
Inaction has consequences, too.

[Redleg]

Oh, now you're abusing people yourself. Nice way to defend your views on free speech, Redleg. Anyway, my strawman has been eating too many red herrings lately, so I'll be a hypocrite and leave you with a story.

Sure I am - people like to claim its fair to abuse bigots, but they fail to realize that in doing so, they become what they are abusing.

Bigots come in all shapes and sizes. Sometimes in the passion to protest against what one feels is an outdate and maybe bigoted view point, the individual becomes what they are protesting against.

A prime examble is the drawing that places a bomb in the turban of the prophet.





Once upon a summer's evening Blueleg makes a stroll through the park. Underneath the Old Oak Tree he spots a man who is holding a gun to another man's head.
Blueleg: 'Well, something seems amiss here!'
Man w/ gun: 'He offended me!'
Other man: 'He was frightening the kids with his gun! I told him to put it away...'
Blueleg: 'I see. Instead of asking him nicely to put the gun away, you told him so! To his face!'
Other man: 'He was threat..'
Man w/ gun: 'Shut up!'
Blueleg: 'Shut up indeed. What you have done is...'
Pausing for a brief moment, Blueleg appears to be grasping for the right words.
Blueleg: '... is unacceptable, you see. Your irresponsible remark touched off this unpleasant incident, and now you have to face the consequences. Good day.'
Satisfied in the knowledge of having discharged his civic duty, Blueleg proceeds through the park, unperturbed by the loud bang behind his back as the brains of the offender splatter the grass underneath the Old Oak Tree. What does perturb him, a mere handful of seconds later, is the sensation of a gun barrel poking against the back of his own head.
Man w/ gun: 'And I don't like your smile either!'
Blueleg: 'What the..'
Next thing Blueleg knows, he knows no more. Which is a real pity, because at the very moment Blueleg's brains splatter the grass underneath the Old Oak Tree, they have begun to realise the true meaning of 'responsibility'.
Unacceptable, I hear you say?
Inaction has consequences, too.

Tsk Tsk. I have never stated not to take action. It seems you have misread the posts, nor his your anology accurate. Since the point that I have been making is that violence is not an acceptable form of speech. Hince the individual would be disarmed by the local police who whould be called.

Do you accept responsiblity for your Freedom? in this spefic instance Freedom of Speech.

Which means you must allow others to have dissenting views about your speech. There is more to the story then many realize, and it would seem your included in that catergory.

Some believe that the muslim communities first reaction was when the Inmans took the drawings to the Middle-East. This fails to recongize that in October there were offical complaints agaisnt the paper registered with the Danish Government by muslims in Denmark, and by nations. All in line with Freedom of Speech concepts.

When you become the bigot - in your desire to protest agaisnt the bigot. You have succumbed to the fear that your anology (story) is attempting to show.

[Tribesman]

David Irving .
Should he have been jailed for what he said ?
Or should he be allowed to express his views openly ?
Freedom of speech , let the gobshite speak freely and watch his views and "facts" get ripped apart .

[Adrian II]

Freedom of speech , let the gobshite speak freely and watch his views and "facts" get ripped apart .Agreed. And while we're at it, let's scrap the French Holocaust law too. It stifles debate.

[Proletariat]

David Irving .
Should he have been jailed for what he said ?
Or should he be allowed to express his views openly ?
Freedom of speech , let the gobshite speak freely and watch his views and "facts" get ripped apart .

Gotta agree. Let him say what he wants. Illegalizing his speech has generated him support in the form of 300 or so letters a week, from sympathizers. No need to give a lunatic like him any more voice and face time with a silly trial.

[Tribesman]

Illegalizing his speech has generated him support in the form of 300 or so letters a week, from sympathizers.
Prole , I read an article on an interview with him in prison , it said over half of the letters he was getting were actually hate mail .

On a related matter , has anyone got any updates on Zundels trial ?
His website (or rather his wifes website) seems to have been closed down again .

[Proletariat]

Illegalizing his speech has generated him support in the form of 300 or so letters a week, from sympathizers.
Prole , I read an article on an interview with him in prison , it said over half of the letters he was getting were actually hate mail .


Ah, that was just the impression I got from listening to a blurb on the radio while driving. I shoulda figured he'd be getting a good deal of hate mail too.

[Soulforged]

If I know that I will create a lot pissed of people by having a competition on offensive cartoons, why would I not think twice first? If the only reason to publish the cartoons are that it's their right to do so, then it's not about freedom of speech anymore...... Yes it's freedom of speech, it's their right to do so, that's what freedom of speech is about. This comments are distorting the initial and sane concept of freedom of speech, wich is just that, a faculty to exercise the languaje in anyway you want, what can be more reasonable than that. Yes they could have thought it twice before publishing them, but that doesn't make it right, if the publishing made all this people insane then the problem is in another place and it's not reasonable to ban any expression just because a group, even a large one, will get furious, even more when this expression doesn't talks about facts. Besides in the ocassion of the first publishing it isn't reasonable to admit that they could predict this irrational actitudes. As for the consecutives publishings they are expressions that reasure the actitud in favor of freedom of speech, not stoping at the sign of uncivilization, defending those values that we consider axiological. If anybody admits the existence of a thing called "freedom of speech", if the same person accepts that it's good, then this same person cannot say with reason that it isn't acceptable in some cases, it's totally arbitrary.

Agreed - Freedom of Speech can be used for things beyond what is reasonable and good for society.Who said that it's necessary that any expression of language has to be good for society? It doesn't matter if it's good or not, that's why freedom of speech is so important, because the critical evaluation of such expression is done after the expression is made, it has to be expressed first, but even if the critic is a negative one, it shouldn't be banned, it's my right to say what I want when I want and piss anybody off (to put it in raw terms).

Do you accept responsiblity for your Freedom? in this spefic instance Freedom of Speech.What does this means Redleg? You keep saying that again and again, when I tried to give it a meaning, it appears that you threw them all into the abiss and made other of your own, but this one is still vague. It appears that you mean exercising any freedom in a considerated way, always concerned for the feelings of the other? That's your responsability or is it accepting the consequences of your actions (the term will not be used correctly in this last case), I don't think so, because the journalists are accepting this consequences, but if by accepting this consquences you mean that they've to retreat by banning their own expressions, not doing it again, apolagizing, and perhaps even accepting moral or legal retribution with out doing anything? Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again.

Which means you must allow others to have dissenting views about your speech. There is more to the story then many realize, and it would seem your included in that catergory.But please when did anybody state that they couldn't have any dissenting views?

[Redleg]

Yes it's freedom of speech, it's their right to do so, that's what freedom of speech is about. This comments are distorting the initial and sane concept of freedom of speech, wich is just that, a faculty to exercise the languaje in anyway you want, what can be more reasonable than that. Yes they could have thought it twice before publishing them, but that doesn't make it right, if the publishing made all this people insane then the problem is in another place and it's not reasonable to ban any expression just because a group, even a large one, will get furious, even more when this expression doesn't talks about facts. Besides in the ocassion of the first publishing it isn't reasonable to admit that they could predict this irrational actitudes. As for the consecutives publishings they are expressions that reasure the actitud in favor of freedom of speech, not stoping at the sign of uncivilization, defending those values that we consider axiological. If anybody admits the existence of a thing called "freedom of speech", if the same person accepts that it's good, then this same person cannot say with reason that it isn't acceptable in some cases, it's totally arbitrary.

Really not my issue



Who said that it's necessary that any expression of language has to be good for society?

Read what was written, not what you think was written.



It doesn't matter if it's good or not, that's why freedom of speech is so important, because the critical evaluation of such expression is done after the expression is made, it has to be expressed first, but even if the critic is a negative one, it shouldn't be banned, it's my right to say what I want when I want and piss anybody off (to put it in raw terms).

Actually you only have the right to voice your opinion, you have to accept the responsiblity that goes with that right.



What does this means Redleg? You keep saying that again and again, when I tried to give it a meaning, it appears that you threw them all into the abiss and made other of your own, but this one is still vague.

Not vague at all. With Freedom comes responsiblity. If your unwilling to be responsible for your Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.




It appears that you mean exercising any freedom in a considerated way, always concerned for the feelings of the other?

Not at all - I am saying accept that your Freedom has an inherient responsiblity that comes with it.



That's your responsability or is it accepting the consequences of your actions (the term will not be used correctly in this last case),

Consequences happen regards of your intent. Accepting responsiblity for your freedom is different then accepting the consequences of other people's actions.



I don't think so, because the journalists are accepting this consequences, but if by accepting this consquences you mean that they've to retreat by banning their own expressions, not doing it again, apolagizing, and perhaps even accepting moral or legal retribution with out doing anything? Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again.
But please when did anybody state that they couldn't have any dissenting views?

Actually I don't think the journalists are accepting responsiblity. I think several of them in Europe are practicing what is know as Yellow Journalism, which while protected by Freedom of Speech, I find irresponsible when practiced.

[Brenus]

“Agreed. And while we're at it, let's scrap the French Holocaust law too. It stifles debate.” No, it didn’t. You can debate of the extermination, you can’t deny it…

Redleg, I am atheist. I accept the consequences. I will be in Hell, if I am wrong. Well, I still don’t know which one because all believers don’t agree on which god created the world. Perhaps I will be allowed only on prostitutes…
What I will not accept should be to be burn alive because I offend other people. I won’t accept to go to Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, secret caves just because if I don’t I offend people. I want to be free to express my view on what I thing is superstitions. I respect and agree that people may need to believe in Aliens or Gods, but I will not accept to be banned of freedom of speech and to tell (politely) what I thing about it. And that is valid from political points of view. I expect from other to respect my point of view, and I don’t take offence of their drawings against atheism.

[Redleg]

Redleg, I am atheist. I accept the consequences. I will be in Hell, if I am wrong. Well, I still don’t know which one because all believers don’t agree on which god created the world. Perhaps I will be allowed only on prostitutes…

I don't care what religion or not you claim to be. Your religious views are irrevelant to the point.




What I will not accept should be to be burn alive because I offend other people. I won’t accept to go to Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, secret caves just because if I don’t I offend people.

I am not telling you to go to church, nor am I advocating others to force you to go into a religion. Attempting such a stance is to misread and to mislead yourself to what I have stated.



I want to be free to express my view on what I thing is superstitions. I respect and agree that people may need to believe in Aliens or Gods, but I will not accept to be banned of freedom of speech and to tell (politely) what I thing about it. And that is valid from political points of view. I expect from other to respect my point of view, and I don’t take offence of their drawings against atheism.

However it seems some don't want to respect the view that they might find the drawing offensive. Again Freedom of Speech requires one to be responsible.

Burning flags, protesting against governments, asking for apologies concerning something that the followers of Islam find offensive and blasmous (SP?) is perfectably acceptable consequences of the followers of Islam protesting against a drawing that was published in a paper. If your allowed to voice your opinion - they are allowed to voice their opinion in a peaceful manner.

To state otherwise is to become the bigot that your are attempting to ridicule. And that is exactly what is wrong with holocaust denial laws. Let the idiots deny the holocaust.

But if you support holocaust denial laws you must also by default support the anti-blasamy laws that the Danish Inmans actually tried to have the Danish authorities enforce back in October concerning the drawings.

And this Brenus is how the two topics are linked.

[Soulforged]

Read what was written, not what you think was written.

Agreed - Freedom of Speech can be used for things beyond what is reasonable and good for society.You assume that it has to have some useful end.

Actually you only have the right to voice your opinion, you have to accept the responsiblity that goes with that right. Responsability 1 (and actually I said that: "voice your opinion" in other words)

Not vague at all. With Freedom comes responsiblity. If your unwilling to be responsible for your Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.It's vague because I don't know to what properties and objects apply your concept of responsability. Responsability 2.

Not at all - I am saying accept that your Freedom has an inherient responsiblity that comes with it.Responsability 3.

Consequences happen regards of your intent. Accepting responsiblity for your freedom is different then accepting the consequences of other people's actions.Responsability 4 and 5.

Actually I don't think the journalists are accepting responsiblity. I think several of them in Europe are practicing what is know as Yellow Journalism, which while protected by Freedom of Speech, I find irresponsible when practiced.So it comes down to your moral evaluation, not to a responsability that they might have, but to one that you think they should have, and that in the end, of all that you deduce, that the concept of freedom of speech has some negative element of definition that goes like this "don't used irresponsably", whatever irresponsably means.

In the first mention of responsability you say "accept", so this must talk about a responsability that is defined for moral values previous to the act of the individual,who in turn must accept that responsability. Reasonable, and now that it appears that you're calling it irresponsable because they made use of sensationalism or for whatever Yellow Journalism you take, then it gets clearer what you mean by accept, and exercise.

In the second mention of responsability you state that there's some condition that a subject must fullfil in order to have a certain "freedom". You appear to state that this condition is the responsable use of such "freedom". However in the same mention you say this "...to be responsible for your Freedom..." this could mean that you have a set of responsabilities when exercising that "freedom" that you must respect, wich do reference in your case to Yellow Journalism, right? It could also mean that you have to respond for that freedom, either accepting the consequences of the exercise or standing up for that freedom when it's attacked, or both? What's acceting the consequences, could it mean that you don't have to complain or that you've have to do an act of presence in representation of such acts. In both cases the journalist fill the conditions. But I think that you mean something on the lines of accepting the moral response that they've to give everytime they exercise their freedom, so for you freedom of speech, at least in the public enviorament, is conditioned to the moral value of the content of such speech or to the process of publication. Thus when speech X is moral regreatable, either it doesn't belong to freedom of speech or it shouldn't be published.

In the third you mention the responsability as inherent. So the act X, of freedom of speech, has already an element of responsability in it, in case that it's absent it's not freedom of speech. Again you make a reference to your last sentence, but the concept here difers from the others, particulary the one above. So in this case, the irresponsable act of voincing opinions, is certainly not freedom of speech.

In the fourth and fifth mention of the concept you say that there's a difference between accepting your own responsability (I assume the one that comes with the exersice and after it, as a consequence, or a result if it's intentional) and accepting the consequences from other people's actions. Now that's perfectly reasonable, but you didn't comprehended my statement, look: "I don't think so, because the journalists are accepting this consequences, but if by accepting this consquences you mean that they've to retreat by banning their own expressions, not doing it again, apolagizing, and perhaps even accepting moral or legal retribution with out doing anything? Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again." Notice how I mention those consequences as part of their own responsability, it doesn't belong to anyone else. That's what you appear to state in this sentence, either that the riots are the responsability of the journalists, as a consequence (if not I don't now what consequence are you talking about) or that it belongs to the rioters themselves, in wich case it has nothing to do with the journalist (if this truth then I'm lost again, because if you separate this consequences from the actions of the journalist, then I don't know for what they've to respond).

Besides your ambigous and vague use of the term in three different sentence in just one post, you still appear to understand that this drawings were more than humor, you appear to believe that they were a description of some reality, as you say "it informs". I still disagree with that, I don't know why you state that it's more than a satire, wich intent is to provoque a laugh at best, and not a description. Let's see what "Yellow Journalism" means usually:
The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Most cases tend to be related to journalistic bias, and the endemic practices of particular organizations to operate as mouthpieces, for rather limited and particular allegiances, rather than for the public trust.

Recent accusations of yellow journalism center around media infotainment and corporate media, referring to organizations where business interests supersede the interests of news organizations to accurately report damaging facts about influential corporations and common practices within corporate industry. In certain cases, the links between political, business, and media worlds, are alleged to violate various laws ranging from fraud to antitrust.

In the modern context of near-instant television news coverage, a perceived careless lack of fact-checking for the sake of a breaking news story might be refered to as yellow journalism. Aspects of yellow journalism can vary at the minimum from the sporadic use of unnecessarily colorful adjectives, up to a systematic tendency to report falsehoods as fact. (See also talking points memo.)As you see it always refers to factual description, and not to an espicies of sensationalism of idols, wich are not facts. I think that an intelligent expression of this not so long ago was posted here, something like: "It's not a pipe, it's an image of a pipe". You see this journalists are not reporting anything, they're posting opinions on non-factual issues, as such responsability introduced in the mass media enviorament in regards to such behavior is rubbish.

[Redleg]

You assume that it has to have some useful end.

Not at all - I perfer it to have some useful purpose. But that is not what the statment states.



Responsability 1 (and actually I said that: "voice your opinion" in other words)
It's vague because I don't know to what properties and objects apply your concept of responsability. Responsability 2.
Responsability 3.
Responsability 4 and 5.

Your still missing the point.



So it comes down to your moral evaluation, not to a responsability that they might have, but to one that you think they should have, and that in the end, of all that you deduce, that the concept of freedom of speech has some negative element of definition that goes like this "don't used irresponsably", whatever irresponsably means.

Speech is always open to moral and ethical evaluation by everyone that hears the speech. Responsibility goes along with Freedom and Rights.



In the first mention of responsability you say "accept", so this must talk about a responsability that is defined for moral values previous to the act of the individual,who in turn must accept that responsability. Reasonable, and now that it appears that you're calling it irresponsable because they made use of sensationalism or for whatever Yellow Journalism you take, then it gets clearer what you mean by accept, and exercise.

No I mean accept responsiblity.



In the second mention of responsability you state that there's some condition that a subject must fullfil in order to have a certain "freedom".

With Freedom comes responsiblity.



You appear to state that this condition is the responsable use of such "freedom". However in the same mention you say this "...to be responsible for your Freedom..." this could mean that you have a set of responsabilities when exercising that "freedom" that you must respect, wich do reference in your case to Yellow Journalism, right?

Yellow Journalism is irresponsible.



It could also mean that you have to respond for that freedom, either accepting the consequences of the exercise or standing up for that freedom when it's attacked, or both?

Your getting very close.


What's acceting the consequences, could it mean that you don't have to complain or that you've have to do an act of presence in representation of such acts.

You lost it



In both cases the journalist fill the conditions.


Actually yellow journalism is allowed within the concept of Free Speech - I just find it an irresponsible method of reporting the facts.



But I think that you mean something on the lines of accepting the moral response that they've to give everytime they exercise their freedom, so for you freedom of speech, at least in the public enviorament, is conditioned to the moral value of the content of such speech or to the process of publication. Thus when speech X is moral regreatable, either it doesn't belong to freedom of speech or it shouldn't be published.

Your almost there, however the concept is an ethical issue.



In the third you mention the responsability as inherent.

Yes indeed responsiblity is inherent in Freedom.



So the act X, of freedom of speech, has already an element of responsability in it, in case that it's absent it's not freedom of speech. Again you make a reference to your last sentence, but the concept here difers from the others, particulary the one above. So in this case, the irresponsable act of voincing opinions, is certainly not freedom of speech.[/quoe]

Not quite there.

[quote]
In the fourth and fifth mention of the concept you say that there's a difference between accepting your own responsability (I assume the one that comes with the exersice and after it, as a consequence, or a result if it's intentional) and accepting the consequences from other people's actions. Now that's perfectly reasonable, but you didn't comprehended my statement, look: "I don't think so, because the journalists are accepting this consequences, but if by accepting this consquences you mean that they've to retreat by banning their own expressions, not doing it again, apolagizing, and perhaps even accepting moral or legal retribution with out doing anything? Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again." Notice how I mention those consequences as part of their own responsability, it doesn't belong to anyone else.

Your getting close again.



That's what you appear to state in this sentence, either that the riots are the responsability of the journalists, as a consequence (if not I don't now what consequence are you talking about)

I didn't state that. The consequence of their free speech was the anger generated by the publication. Now if the intent of the publication was to cause this anger then the journalists in question acted irresponsible. If the intent was purely to inform, then the journalists in question acted responsibily.



or that it belongs to the rioters themselves, in wich case it has nothing to do with the journalist (if this truth then I'm lost again, because if you separate this consequences from the actions of the journalist, then I don't know for what they've to respond).

The consequences of rioting belongs to the rioters. Unless one can prove that the intent of the publication was to incite violence. The initial publication of the drawings was not one of an intent to incite. However I question some of the motives of the subsequent publications.


Besides your ambigous and vague use of the term in three different sentence in just one post,

Tsk tsk - I am pretty clear in what I mean.



you still appear to understand that this drawings were more than humor, you appear to believe that they were a description of some reality, as you say "it informs".

Publication in the press is to inform.


I still disagree with that, I don't know why you state that it's more than a satire, wich intent is to provoque a laugh at best, and not a description.

Based upon a contest that was in response to the allegations and preception of a fearful society.



Let's see what "Yellow Journalism" means usually:As you see it always refers to factual description, and not to an espicies of sensationalism of idols, wich are not facts. I think that an intelligent expression of this not so long ago was posted here, something like: "It's not a pipe, it's an image of a pipe". You see this journalists are not reporting anything, they're posting opinions on non-factual issues, as such responsability introduced in the mass media enviorament in regards to such behavior is rubbish.

Actually Yellow Journalism means (from your own source) The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Last time I check take dominance over means that Yellow Journalism uses those forms versus being concerned about ensuring facts. sensationalism - which is what was done with a contest based upon fear of a group; profiteering - yes indeed the contest was done to insure a profit for the paper, but it does not in itself meet the definition; propaganda - oh yes, several of the drawings are based upon propaganda and jingoism. It seems you have missed one of the key words to the definition of Yellow Journalism.

[Brenus]

“Your religious views are irrelevant to the point”: I think you miss the point.

“Attempting such a stance is to misread and to mislead yourself to what I have stated”: I think it is exactly what you said. Your “with freedom is responsibility” is just a way to put the blame on people expressing an “offence” against whatever fanatics and blaming them because they didn’t thought of the consequences of their free speeches or expressions which offended ignorant, fanatics and bigots. It gives to the terrorist a moral right. If you don’t see it, well, we will carry on with you “freedom comes with responsibility” and my “freedom is the right to express yourself against all totalitarian ideology without fear, at least in democratic states”.

“And this Brenus is how the two topics are linked”: It how people wanted the things to be linked. To deny the holocaust isn’t a blasphemy against a principal, a god or idea. It is a denial against the mass murder of millions, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, just because what they were: Real fact.
A blasphemy is against an idea of what a god might think, a prophet should be represented or an ideologue wanted to express is another dimension: Interpretation of dreams.

[Redleg]

“Your religious views are irrelevant to the point”: I think you miss the point.

Not at all - at issue is the fundmental principles of Freedom of Speech and the responsiblity that comes with them.




“Attempting such a stance is to misread and to mislead yourself to what I have stated”: I think it is exactly what you said. Your “with freedom is responsibility” is just a way to put the blame on people expressing an “offence” against whatever fanatics and blaming them because they didn’t thought of the consequences of their free speeches or expressions which offended ignorant, fanatics and bigots.

Your close but your missing several points. One it is not placing blame, its accepting responsiblity. Papers have a greater responsiblity to insure thier speech is accurate and factual because of the nature of thier publication. Did the paper act in a responsible matter in holding a contest so that it could publish cartoons? That when looking at one of them violates the blasphemy laws of the religion it is drawn toward, and seems on the surface to violate the anti-blasphemy laws of the nation where it was published. (In october the Inmans attempt to have the law enforced concerning the drawings but it was turned down.)

I know it might be to subtle of a difference for someone that in his desire to ridicule what he believes is nothing but bigots. Especially when it comes from a paper with a history of bigotry toward the immigrant community of Denmark, according to several sources. The paper has a history that shows that it is not above bigotry (racism) of its own when it concerns immigrants.



It gives to the terrorist a moral right. If you don’t see it, well, we will carry on with you “freedom comes with responsibility” and my “freedom is the right to express yourself against all totalitarian ideology without fear, at least in democratic states”.

Oh I don't have a problem with people expressing their ideas, what I have a problem with is the arhguement that states how dare they get upset with me expressing my view?

Violence is wrong as stated several times, but if you have the right to express yourself against their ideas, they have the right to express themselves against your ideas. Freedom of Speech is a two way street also.




“And this Brenus is how the two topics are linked”: It how people wanted the things to be linked. To deny the holocaust isn’t a blasphemy against a principal, a god or idea. It is a denial against the mass murder of millions, Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, just because what they were: Real fact.

Both are issues of Free Speech. To claim one is illegal and wrong while the other is perfectly legal and right is hypocrisy. A funny thing now isn't? Denying that the issues are linked in the concept of Free Speech is a form of denial all on its own.



A blasphemy is against an idea of what a god might think, a prophet should be represented or an ideologue wanted to express is another dimension: Interpretation of dreams.

To bad Denmark and many European nations have anti-blasphemy laws. Its the same violation of the principle of Free Speech as laws that state one can not argue against the holocaust.

Funny thing about Free Speech it has a whole bunch of responsiblities that come with it. One is to allow others to speak their mind without fear of prosecution if their intent is not to incite violence. The other is to allow others to state what they feel without fear of prosecution no matter how stupid and false you believe them to be.

Again be very careful of not becoming the bigot in which you are protesting against.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I hereby appoint Brenus as my spokesman on this matter! :jumping:

[drone]

Here's an interesting article written by William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz (strange bedfellows here) on the failure of the American media in this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202010.html

[Brenus]

“Papers have a greater responsiblity to insure thier speech is accurate and factual because of the nature of thier publication”. Perhaps it is because I am French, but in France we have what we call the “journaux d’opinion (y'a pas de e? Au secours, j'oublie mon francais!!!! Désolé pour la cédille...)” newspapers which are not based on reporting news but opinion, analyse and mood. So, if each time before to criticize something they have to think about not offending people in case they start to burn and kill, well, what a democracy it will be.:inquisitive:

“One it is not placing blame, its accepting responsibility”. Yes, in one hand you blame the newspapers because in exercising their freedom of speech/expression they offended the ultra-Muslims/fascists, breaking no laws of their own country; on the other hand you are saying that the Austria Government is guilty to punish a man who broke the law. But, according to you, David Irving should accept the responsibility/consequence of his speech. He offended the Austrians (and the law).:no:

“his desire to ridicule what he believes is nothing but bigots”. You interpret what I wrote. I have no DESIRE to ridicule, but I want to keep the right to do it if I want. I don’t want subjects out of mockery or joke just because they sanctified or Holly in the eyes of a certain amount of people. I want to keep the right to criticise Politic, Clergy, Artist, books whatever I want to do.
I do not ridicule believers; I ridicule bigots, extremists, people who want to impose their idea of happiness to others.:furious3:

“Especially when it comes from a paper with a history of bigotry toward the immigrant community of Denmark, according to several sources. The paper has a history that shows that it is not above bigotry (racism) of its own when it concerns immigrants.” I didn’t know that. I read the article proposed in one link offered in this thread, and I found no racism and no proof of what you are saying. But, even if it is true, the newspaper breaks no law. It didn’t call to kill the Muslims, it didn’t call for a crusade, and it stayed in a normal tone of expression.

“but if you have the right to express yourself against their ideas, they have the right to express themselves against your ideas. Freedom of Speech is a two way street also.” YES, we agree on something…:sweatdrop:

“To claim one is illegal and wrong while the other is perfectly legal and right is hypocrisy.” No, it is legality. It is what you seem not to see. It is illegal to deny the holocaust in some countries in Europe. You may be against this law (I am against a lot of law, specially the one about blasphemy….), but it is ILLEGAL.
To offend the feeling of people ISN’T ILLEGAL. To call for murder is…

“Again be very careful of not becoming the bigot in which you are protesting against” Don’t worry for that, my wife is a believer (her daughter is even involve in Church, what a catastrophe!!!), and I have friends of all religions, even if most of them are not really believers and more or less, well atheists.:2thumbsup:

[Redleg]

“Papers have a greater responsiblity to insure thier speech is accurate and factual because of the nature of thier publication”. Perhaps it is because I am French, but in France we have what we call the “journaux d’opinion (y'a pas de e? Au secours, j'oublie mon francais!!!! Désolé pour la cédille...)” newspapers which are not based on reporting news but opinion, analyse and mood. So, if each time before to criticize something they have to think about not offending people in case they start to burn and kill, well, what a democracy it will be.:inquisitive:

We have them here to; there called tabloids. Trash papers that specialize in yellow journalism. I find them all to be irresponsible in their message to the audience. And nice use of twisting words by the way.



“One it is not placing blame, its accepting responsibility”. Yes, in one hand you blame the newspapers because in exercising their freedom of speech/expression they offended the ultra-Muslims/fascists, breaking no laws of their own country; on the other hand you are saying that the Austria Government is guilty to punish a man who broke the law. But, according to you, David Irving should accept the responsibility/consequence of his speech. He offended the Austrians (and the law).:no:

Again read what is written not what you think is written. I have stated the paper acted irresponsible. The blame for the rioting falls squarely on those who riot. Accepting that responsibility was not shown by the paper is not the same as blaming them for the rioter's behavior. Rioting falls squarely on those who riot. What can not be established from my knowledge is was the intent of the paper to incite violence with the drawings, something I have stated several times now.

Criminal responsibility falls on intent.



“his desire to ridicule what he believes is nothing but bigots”. You interpret what I wrote. I have no DESIRE to ridicule, but I want to keep the right to do it if I want. I don’t want subjects out of mockery or joke just because they sanctified or Holly in the eyes of a certain amount of people. I want to keep the right to criticise Politic, Clergy, Artist, books whatever I want to do.
I do not ridicule believers; I ridicule bigots, extremists, people who want to impose their idea of happiness to others.:furious3:


Yes indeed I to can twist people's words to mean what I want it to mean. Just like you have done several times with mine.

Now the rest of your thoughts here I agree with. Freedom of Speech however means that what is good for the goose is also good for the gandor.




“Especially when it comes from a paper with a history of bigotry toward the immigrant community of Denmark, according to several sources. The paper has a history that shows that it is not above bigotry (racism) of its own when it concerns immigrants.” I didn’t know that. I read the article proposed in one link offered in this thread, and I found no racism and no proof of what you are saying. But, even if it is true, the newspaper breaks no law. It didn’t call to kill the Muslims, it didn’t call for a crusade, and it stayed in a normal tone of expression.

However it shows that the paper has a history of something, other then fair journalism when it comes to immigrants. One of the pictures however is not within normal tones of expression when viewed. This is where the question of intent comes in.



“but if you have the right to express yourself against their ideas, they have the right to express themselves against your ideas. Freedom of Speech is a two way street also.” YES, we agree on something…:sweatdrop:


Of course we do, the difference is in the application of that idea.



“To claim one is illegal and wrong while the other is perfectly legal and right is hypocrisy.” No, it is legality. It is what you seem not to see. It is illegal to deny the holocaust in some countries in Europe. You may be against this law (I am against a lot of law, specially the one about blasphemy….), but it is ILLEGAL.

I am well aware of what some of the laws state. THere is one in Denmark that states Blasphemy is also illegal. Was it enforced by the Danish authories when the Inmans went to register a complaint against the paper for just such a violation?

What the knucklehead did was use irresponsible free speech - which the Austrian authorities decided to arrest him for, because of thier law that violates one of the main principles of freedom of speech. His speech did not incite others for violence, it just igorant. And yes I have no problem with the Austrian authorities upholding their law about holocaust denial no matter how much it violates the principles behind Freedom of Speech.



To offend the feeling of people ISN’T ILLEGAL. To call for murder is…

Correct - hince the laws that state no blasphemy and denial of holocaust are violations of Free speech. That is the similiarity between the two. Again does not the Danish law state that blasphemy is an offensive punishable under the law?

If this law exists in Denmark why was it not enforced by the Danish Authorities?

There is a side conversation that can take place down this line of thought but its not relevant to the current discussion. But it does provide another linkage to the similiarities and contrasts between the two situations. To include the hypocrisy of the European governments when it comes to the application of Freedom of Speech.




“Again be very careful of not becoming the bigot in which you are protesting against” Don’t worry for that, my wife is a believer (her daughter is even involve in Church, what a catastrophe!!!), and I have friends of all religions, even if most of them are not really believers and more or less, well atheists.:2thumbsup:

Good. :2thumbsup:

[CBR]

If this law exists in Denmark why was it not enforced by the Danish Authorities?


The one and only occasion the law was used was in 1938 and that was a conviction for anti-semitism. Last spring the politicians were working on abolishing it, but party politics stopped that. It is AFAIK a bit of an ambiguous law and I think several experts have said the cartoons are not enough for a conviction


CBR

[Brenus]

“To include the hypocrisy of the European governments when it comes to the application of Freedom of Speech.” Add the US in your list were you can be Nazi but not communist.:laugh4:

“the cartoons are not enough for a conviction”: Well, yeah, what is a blasphemy? The answers will give too much power to the clergy. Separate State and Churches is the ONLY solution… When I say there is not God(s), even the "s" between bracket is a blasphemy for 3 main religions....

[Brenus]

I forgot one point, sorry:
“there called tabloids.”. No no, tabloid I know what there are, I live in UK now. The good example is the SUN newspapers which main target are all foreigners and specially the French. No, I refer to newspaper like Le Monde Diplomatique, or magazine like Le Point, Marianne. They refer to the actuality but give some point of view and analyses about events, of course in line with the political view (Left or Right, conservative, socialist, Central Democrat, or even opposite different political or religious views).

[Louis VI the Fat]

I can't figure out the proper translation for 'journaux d’opinion' either. 'Opinion (news)papers' doesn't seem to be a proper translation. Time, newsweek, Foreign Affairs would be examples. Maybe the Anglosaxon world makes a less sharp distinction between proper newspapers and 'opinion newspapers / magazines' ?

[InsaneApache]

I can't figure out the proper translation for 'journaux d’opinion' either. 'Opinion (news)papers' doesn't seem to be a proper translation. Time, newsweek, Foreign Affairs would be examples. Maybe the Anglosaxon world makes a less sharp distinction between proper newspapers and 'opinion newspapers / magazines' ?

Anything with 'Daily' in the title or if they have a red top is a rag.

[Louis VI the Fat]

ragI had to look that word up. Unfortunately, google send me here. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=R.A.G) You Anglo's have words for the weirdest things. :no:

Anyway, a second search revealed: Rag - newspaper, especially one specializing in sensationalism or gossip.
Ah. :sweatdrop:

But no, Brenus isn't talking about the difference between the quality and sensationalist press. (Or tabloids or yellow journalism) It's not about quality, but about purpose.

If English does have a proper translation for 'journaux d'opinion', I can't think of it. The Financial Times is a proper newspaper, the Economist is an 'opinion newspaper'.

[Redleg]

“To include the hypocrisy of the European governments when it comes to the application of Freedom of Speech.” Add the US in your list were you can be Nazi but not communist.:laugh4:

If we were discussing Freedom of Speech in the United States I would point out the more subtle hypocrisy that is present in the United States. By the way you can be both a Nazi and a communist in the United States. You might want to notice how long the communist party has been in the United States.



“the cartoons are not enough for a conviction”: Well, yeah, what is a blasphemy? The answers will give too much power to the clergy. Separate State and Churches is the ONLY solution… When I say there is not God(s), even the "s" between bracket is a blasphemy for 3 main religions....

Shows how idiotic the law is, however if the law is present and not enforced it presents a dilemia when the law is violated.


I forgot one point, sorry:
“there called tabloids.”. No no, tabloid I know what there are, I live in UK now. The good example is the SUN newspapers which main target are all foreigners and specially the French. No, I refer to newspaper like Le Monde Diplomatique, or magazine like Le Point, Marianne. They refer to the actuality but give some point of view and analyses about events, of course in line with the political view (Left or Right, conservative, socialist, Central Democrat, or even opposite different political or religious views).

Partisan papers target the audience in which they are geared toward. These types of papers also do a lot of "Yellow Journalism" to get their points across. If I want opinions I come to sites like the Org. When I buy a newspaper I expect to see at least an attempt at journalistic ethics being meant.

[Paul Peru]

Add the US in your list were you can be Nazi but not communist.:laugh4:
I find yet another excuse to quote two funny guys:

Stephen Are you a communist? Do you
want me to call a policeman?

Hugh It's not a crime to be a communist. Anyway
I'm not.

Stephen Not a crime? Not a crime? Have you gone howling
mad, not a crime. This is 1988, of course it's a
crime. Communists are the enemy of democracy,
they are criminals.

Hugh Well what's so good about democracy?

Stephen What's so good about democracy? What's so good
about democracy he asks? It's freedom of speech
and thought and belief, that's what's so good about
it, you degraded heap of smelliness. Now get out
of my way before I set fire to you.

[Brenus]

“By the way you can be both a Nazi and a communist in the United States”. If it is true, why McCarthy? If it was legal to be communist, why, when I went in the US, I was asked if a member of my family was communist?:inquisitive:

It is worst than I thought. The Communist Party is Legal in the USA… So, people were put out of job because their exercise their rights… If that isn’t HYPOCRISY, what is it?:dizzy2:

“the law is present and not enforced it presents a dilemia when the law is violated” The worst when a idiotic law is enforced, if you want my opinion. In the UK, I think yesterday, I guy was fined £ 20 or 50 because he swear in the street…:inquisitive:

“Partisan papers”, no, it isn’t this kind neither. We have that also, like the Humanité for the Communist Party, l’Aurore, Socialist, Figaro, conservative, etc. Perhaps it is a French specificity… For example, Les Cahiers d’Orient will analyse the political development in Muslims Countries, and a lot of specialists will give their opinion about such and such subject. You can agree or disagree, but it is always interesting to read. Ok, we aren’t anymore in the subject… But these papers can’t speak about a event or a reality, because their aim is the interpretation of the events. And these one are prime target to every laws trying to censure for whatever reasons.

Hey, I just remember one thing! Perhaps Irving in jail is just how Austria wants EU to forgets than few years ago, the Austrians elected a guy who said that Hitler wasn’t so bad. Do not remember his name…

[Redleg]

“By the way you can be both a Nazi and a communist in the United States”. If it is true, why McCarthy? If it was legal to be communist, why, when I went in the US, I was asked if a member of my family was communist?:inquisitive:

You can research McCarthy very easy, what McCarthy was focusing on was communists in the government. Not members of the communist party in the United States. That it esclated into a hysiteria is not to surprising, especially if you take what is going on in this situation and place it into the same type of light. Both sides are esclating the situation because of their own percieved issues and problems.

Tracking communists does not equate to a violation of Free Speech, nor does it make it illegal.

I see this as nothing but an attempt to derail an arguement of the present by bringing up an activity of 50 years ago. Or you attempting to state that Europe is 50+ years behind the United States in the principles and concepts of Freedom of Speech?



It is worst than I thought. The Communist Party is Legal in the USA… So, people were put out of job because their exercise their rights… If that isn’t HYPOCRISY, what is it?:dizzy2:

1950's hysitery (SP). Try finding if a communist has been thrown out of a job in the United States in the last 30 years? Excluding Federal Government and Military. Which it states in the contract that one can not be a member of the communist party, along with other organizations such as the KKK for examble.



“the law is present and not enforced it presents a dilemia when the law is violated” The worst when a idiotic law is enforced, if you want my opinion. In the UK, I think yesterday, I guy was fined £ 20 or 50 because he swear in the street…:inquisitive:

Idiotic laws should be removed from the books. That is the point.




“Partisan papers”, no, it isn’t this kind neither. We have that also, like the Humanité for the Communist Party, l’Aurore, Socialist, Figaro, conservative, etc. Perhaps it is a French specificity… For example, Les Cahiers d’Orient will analyse the political development in Muslims Countries, and a lot of specialists will give their opinion about such and such subject. You can agree or disagree, but it is always interesting to read. Ok, we aren’t anymore in the subject… But these papers can’t speak about a event or a reality, because their aim is the interpretation of the events. And these one are prime target to every laws trying to censure for whatever reasons.


Again sounds a lot like partisan papers, yellow journalism, or a rag of a paper. Take your pick.



Hey, I just remember one thing! Perhaps Irving in jail is just how Austria wants EU to forgets than few years ago, the Austrians elected a guy who said that Hitler wasn’t so bad. Do not remember his name…

Just as likely as any other reason.

[Soulforged]

Your still missing the point. Claustic response, nothing to argue.

Speech is always open to moral and ethical evaluation by everyone that hears the speech. Responsibility goes along with Freedom and Rights.Actually that's what I mean, it has to be communicated it has to exist as more than a simple idea in the mind of someone.

No I mean accept responsiblity.
Are you reading my answers?
"...so this must talk about a responsability that is defined for moral values previous to the act of the individual,who in turn must accept that responsability..." As you see I'm saying that exactly. But you don't accept responsability plain an simple, as you say a few commentaries below "it's an ethical issue" so you accept a kind of moral responsability.

With Freedom comes responsiblity.Claustic response.

Yellow Journalism is irresponsible.Never said that it's not, but if your question about the moral discourse in this issue is reduced to the concept of Yellow Journalism then you've to provide your definition of it, as it appears to difer from the conventional one.


It could also mean that you have to respond for that freedom, either accepting the consequences of the exercise or standing up for that freedom when it's attacked, or both?


Your getting very close.But you don't appear to adopt that possition. You keep saying that they've to respond to a concept of deligence as responsability in the exercise of freedom of speech. What I'm saying is that you stand up for that freedom before those exact pressures of deligence and political correctness, and specially before an angered mob.

Actually yellow journalism is allowed within the concept of Free Speech - I just find it an irresponsible method of reporting the facts.Agreed.


Thus when speech X is moral regreatable, either it doesn't belong to freedom of speech or it shouldn't be published.


Your almost there, however the concept is an ethical issue. Again you appear to have missed my statement. That's exactly what I said, a moral issue (ethics is the study of morality).


Yes indeed responsiblity is inherent in Freedom.Then how is my following statement "Not quite there."

So the act X, of freedom of speech, has already an element of responsability in it, in case that it's absent it's not freedom of speech. Again you make a reference to your last sentence, but the concept here difers from the others, particulary the one above. So in this case, the irresponsable act of voincing opinions, is certainly not freedom of speech.That's exactly what inherent means. For example in biological terms if you're configured by your genes and one those is not present, then you become someone else.

Your getting close again.I made a question in there wich was: as the scheme was presented, "Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again."

I didn't state that. The consequence of their free speech was the anger generated by the publication. Now if the intent of the publication was to cause this anger then the journalists in question acted irresponsible. If the intent was purely to inform, then the journalists in question acted responsibily.So what you're saying is that they're responsable for an state of mind but they're not responsable for the practical consequences of such state, so as an action only the consequences included in their intention form part of the action itself. However take a look at the bolded part in one of the next comments you state the following "Publication in the press is to inform." So you presume their intent by the act of publication. If the intent is always to inform then they're never irresponsable.

The consequences of rioting belongs to the rioters. Unless one can prove that the intent of the publication was to incite violence.So in this case the anger plus the consequences of the riot also belong to the publishers
The initial publication of the drawings was not one of an intent to incite. However I question some of the motives of the subsequent publications.The intent is important in such case but invetigations of such intents are vain. What matters is the expression considered in itself. But considered in itself it's an expression of persuasion, it persuades to create joy or diversion.

Tsk tsk - I am pretty clear in what I mean.Not exactly.

Based upon a contest that was in response to the allegations and preception of a fearful society.But this doesn't say anything about it's descriptive or in another case it's persuasive character, is only that you consider it morally regreatable and in consequence you attach to the expression more value than it has.

Actually Yellow Journalism means (from your own source) The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting. Last time I check take dominance over means that Yellow Journalism uses those forms versus being concerned about ensuring facts. sensationalism - which is what was done with a contest based upon fear of a group; profiteering - yes indeed the contest was done to insure a profit for the paper, but it does not in itself meet the definition; propaganda - oh yes, several of the drawings are based upon propaganda and jingoism. It seems you have missed one of the key words to the definition of Yellow Journalism.Yes that's what it means. Now from where do you infer that it's more than a persuasive expression? You say first that it describes the fear that some group has upon someother group, but if it describes it, and by fear we mean an state of mind, then how can that be described, even if it could, the way in what it's expressed shows the truth about that fear, thus you cannot allegate sensationalist distortion of the facts because those "facts" are not real, as I've said many times this is just an expression of emotions done to persuade, and you're only reasuring that. About the propaganda again you give a claustic response, I cannot argue over that unless you state the reasons upon wich you base your assumption that they're propaganda or jingoism, and by the way both concepts are, like in the case of sensationalism. attached to factual information.

[Divinus Arma]

I leave y'all in the wind for 2 months, and your still doing the religious song and dance? So much for the theory that my logic would be more prolific my absence.

Freedom of Speach is the single most important right we have here in America. I'm willing to put up with any infringements on my rights so long as I can retain freedom of speach. The muslim response to those danish cartoons is downright pathetic. It's throwing a tantrum for bull that they themselves have been pulling for decades.

Let them moan and whine, the human race should not have to bend over backwards for Islam, or any religious institution that decides to get it's way by throwing a tantrum.

I left for about that long too. Nothing wrong with getting off the merry-go -round every now again.

Funny thing is, when I came back, I am both more psychotic and more friendly. :laugh4: :skull: :2thumbsup: :wall:

[Redleg]

Claustic response, nothing to argue.

Give an arguement that is worth responding to then.



Actually that's what I mean, it has to be communicated it has to exist as more than a simple idea in the mind of someone.

And that is what I have been saying all along.



Are you reading my answers?

Yes - however you continue with the same arguement in response. Therefor you get the same one in return.



"...so this must talk about a responsability that is defined for moral values previous to the act of the individual,who in turn must accept that responsability..." As you see I'm saying that exactly. But you don't accept responsability plain an simple, as you say a few commentaries below "it's an ethical issue" so you accept a kind of moral responsability.

It looks like someone isn't reading what is written and it is not me.



Claustic response.

And a very true one. With Freedom comes responsiblity.



Never said that it's not, but if your question about the moral discourse in this issue is reduced to the concept of Yellow Journalism then you've to provide your definition of it, as it appears to difer from the conventional one.

Your incorrect. The individual who tried a different definition is yourself.



But you don't appear to adopt that possition. You keep saying that they've to respond to a concept of deligence as responsability in the exercise of freedom of speech.

Your getting warm. WIth Freedom comes responsiblity. If you refuse to acknowledge that then the discussion is mote. If in accepting responsiblity you refuse to accept that one must be deligent in the application of that Freedom then the discussion is mote.



What I'm saying is that you stand up for that freedom before those exact pressures of deligence and political correctness, and specially before an angered mob.

If the words were stated without the intent to offend - then you are correct. Some people will be offended no matter what you say, those individuals are not my concern. If in exercising your Freedom of Speech your intent is do create hositility and incite - then your not being deligent in your speech, nor are you being responsible.



Agreed.



Again you appear to have missed my statement. That's exactly what I said, a moral issue (ethics is the study of morality).


Nope did not miss it, ethics goes beyond the study of morality. Ethic also is the study of how people behave in certain situations.




Then how is my following statement "Not quite there."
Because you seem to be arguing that on purpose hate filled speech printed by a newspaper is a responsible act.



That's exactly what inherent means. For example in biological terms if you're configured by your genes and one those is not present, then you become someone else.

Not speaking on biology - but Freedom.



I made a question in there wich was: as the scheme was presented, "Does that seem reasonable to you, or did I miss your concept of responsability again."

Hince your inablity to understand what I have written. The answer was present before you asked the question.



So what you're saying is that they're responsable for an state of mind

I am saying the publisher of the cartoons exercised Yellow Journalism which is an irresponsible act. There intent was to sell their paper with a sensational story that targeted a specific element to increase its sells.



but they're not responsable for the practical consequences of such state, so as an action only the consequences included in their intention form part of the action itself.

Yes indeed what I have been saying.



However take a look at the bolded part in one of the next comments you state the following "Publication in the press is to inform." So you presume their intent by the act of publication. If the intent is always to inform then they're never irresponsable.

Oh someone is trying to be clever. Yellow Journalism has been shown to be irresponsable several times in history. Responsiblity is shown by intent. One can attempt to inform, and still be irresponsible. All yellow journalism shows this point to be correct.



So in this case the anger plus the consequences of the riot also belong to the publishers

The consequences of the rioting belong solely on the rioters unless it can be shown that the intent of publication was to incite such a riot.



The intent is important in such case but invetigations of such intents are vain. What matters is the expression considered in itself. But considered in itself it's an expression of persuasion, it persuades to create joy or diversion.


And?



Not exactly.

Must be your failure to understand. (yes I know I am getting a little snide, but your comment deserves it)



But this doesn't say anything about it's descriptive or in another case it's persuasive character, is only that you consider it morally regreatable and in consequence you attach to the expression more value than it has.

Not at all - it shows that the exercise of Freedom of Speech by the newspaper was indeed Yellow Journalism.



Yes that's what it means.


Yes I know - but you seem to have a problem understanding that you were incorrect.



Now from where do you infer that it's more than a persuasive expression?
Read the definition again.



You say first that it describes the fear that some group has upon someother group, but if it describes it, and by fear we mean an state of mind, then how can that be described, even if it could, the way in what it's expressed shows the truth about that fear, thus you cannot allegate sensationalist distortion of the facts because those "facts" are not real, as I've said many times this is just an expression of emotions done to persuade, and you're only reasuring that. About the propaganda again you give a claustic response, I cannot argue over that unless you state the reasons upon wich you base your assumption that they're propaganda or jingoism, and by the way both concepts are, like in the case of sensationalism. attached to factual information.

Tsk tsk - I wonder if you realize what you just stated here.

[Red Peasant]

C'mon guys, when you know that Redleg has the bit between his teeth on a subject then resistance is futile! He's the kinda guy who will dot the universe's last 'i', and cross its very last 't'. Kinda admirable and scary at one and the same time. Nice one Redleg.

:2thumbsup:

[Soulforged]

Give an arguement that is worth responding to then.Ok I see that this discussion is begining to lose it's reason. If you're only able to give that answer then this will be the end of the discussion. I've personally answered every arguement that is given to me without whining, because I don't consider any arguement to be "worth" my response.You're begining to show your haughty face. Please give me a neutral arguement or say that you don't want to discuss the subject but make this a competition of the "better" arguement.

And that is what I have been saying all along.And I'm not saying that you not. But you say that the journalists should have concealed it after the consequences of the first publication, that makes it partially contradictory.

Yes - however you continue with the same arguement in response. Therefor you get the same one in return.
It looks like someone isn't reading what is written and it is not me.It maybe, but you give me nothing to argue again, so I cannot answer you.

And a very true one. With Freedom comes responsiblity.But that has been said. The problem is that the meaning might difer from interpretation to interpretation, as the meaning of any sentence. That's what I inquired first, now it's more about the meaning of Yellow Journalism.

Your incorrect. The individual who tried a different definition is yourself.I don't think so, if you read correctly the definition provided by wikipedia they all have some factual element that lacks in your concept.

Your getting warm. WIth Freedom comes responsiblity. If you refuse to acknowledge that then the discussion is mote. If in accepting responsiblity you refuse to accept that one must be deligent in the application of that Freedom then the discussion is mote.I'm not ignoring that, I even agree with you on certain issues concerning the same subject, but you appear to force this concept (Yellow Journalism) to reach places beyond it's meaning.

If the words were stated without the intent to offend - then you are correct. Besides the pratical problem of intent, there's an irrelevancy of the intent in some cases of sensationalism where the intent is indiferent to consider certain description as over factual or simply factual.
Some people will be offended no matter what you say, those individuals are not my concern. If in exercising your Freedom of Speech your intent is do create hositility and incite - then your not being deligent in your speech, nor are you being responsible.I fully agree with you, but again there's the practical problem of the intent. And there's the issue with your kind of lack of deligence that's the Yellow Journalism.

Nope did not miss it, ethics goes beyond the study of morality. Ethic also is the study of how people behave in certain situations.According to moral values.

Because you seem to be arguing that on purpose hate filled speech printed by a newspaper is a responsible act.Not exactly. That's because you give a moral value to the drawings, and that's ok, but it has nothing to do with facts. If the drawings were included in an informative article, depicting an state of things or a phenomenum in alternative ways that will be other case. And if that drawing generated so much anger, then they would act irresponsable is published again and again.

Not speaking on biology - but Freedom.It's called analogy. It presents some similar properties so I use the same kind of judgement. This properties are in this case the fact that the gene and the responsability both define a concept.

Hince your inablity to understand what I have written. The answer was present before you asked the question.Ok.

I am saying the publisher of the cartoons exercised Yellow Journalism which is an irresponsible act. There intent was to sell their paper with a sensational story that targeted a specific element to increase its sells.An story? I think this was about a drawing, and not a comic for that matter. Red are you adjusting your facts to agree with your visions? And by the way the description of the action that you give in the bolded part, is not exactly relevant as morality goes, because every piece of journalism has that intent (ie it always wants to be selled and it always targets an specific element).

Oh someone is trying to be clever. Yellow Journalism has been shown to be irresponsable several times in history. Responsiblity is shown by intent. One can attempt to inform, and still be irresponsible. All yellow journalism shows this point to be correct.I'm not trying to be clever Red only pointing my interpretation of your statement that goes like this (feel free to correct any missinterpretation):"If the intent was purely to inform, then the journalists in question acted responsibily". Notice how you clearly state "...intent was purely to inform". Again if the intent on any journalist publication is always to inform then this can only mean that they always act responsable, unless that you consider the intent as indiferent as posted above, when the article goes over the facts. Or alternatively that you consider that the intent is not always to inform, that will be a realistic approach, if I may add, because not every journalist piece has that purpose.

The consequences of the rioting belong solely on the rioters unless it can be shown that the intent of publication was to incite such a riot.So by the meaning of this, and using an old analogy, if the intent of the raped woman was to provoque men, then when she's raped the consequences are attached to her intent (in the analogy are present, again to similar elements, the state of mind generated and the consequences of such state, even more if they're causal). I'm correct?

And?Just making observations. Specially because you still consider it a piece of description and not of emotion or persuasion.

Must be your failure to understand. (yes I know I am getting a little snide, but your comment deserves it)No. You're correct, it's my failure to understand, if you haven't noticed it I've over and over inquired about meanings, concepts and points of view.

Not at all - it shows that the exercise of Freedom of Speech by the newspaper was indeed Yellow Journalism.No. Anyway that was because I misunderstood your statement wich was made clear in the following comments.

Yes I know - but you seem to have a problem understanding that you were incorrect.Are you suggesting that I posted the excerpt of wikipedia without reading it or understanding it?

Read the definition again.Claustic response. Again nothing to argue, I've read it many times by now.

Tsk tsk - I wonder if you realize what you just stated here.Well I presume that I do, otherwise I'll not post it would I? However instead of giving me that short answer, with not arguement in it, you could have saved another post and told me what I didn't realized.

[Brenus]

“WIth Freedom comes responsibility”: Why? Suddenly, I ask why we should accept this axiom? I want to be free to be a coward, to refuse the responsibility of my act. It is my right.
If I said something which offends people I refuse to be punched on the nose. The answer to my offence has to be at the same level, if not, I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of the person I offended. :laugh4:

[Redleg]

Ok I see that this discussion is begining to lose it's reason.

It lost it reason many pages back.



If you're only able to give that answer then this will be the end of the discussion. I've personally answered every arguement that is given to me without whining, because I don't consider any arguement to be "worth" my response.You're begining to show your haughty face. Please give me a neutral arguement or say that you don't want to discuss the subject but make this a competition of the "better" arguement.

THere is no nuetral arguement in Freedom of Speech. Attempting to get to a nuetral arguement shows a lack of understanding on the concept of Freedom of Speech. You either accept that there is responsiblity or no responsiblity in Free Speech.



And I'm not saying that you not. But you say that the journalists should have concealed it after the consequences of the first publication, that makes it partially contradictory.

Didn't say conceal it - that is your term. I stated that the intent of the publications after the initial is questionable given the nature of the speech and the story in itself.



It maybe, but you give me nothing to argue again, so I cannot answer you.
But that has been said. The problem is that the meaning might difer from interpretation to interpretation, as the meaning of any sentence. That's what I inquired first, now it's more about the meaning of Yellow Journalism.

Nope it has always been about Freedom of Speech. Yellow Journalism is an irresponsible form of Free Speech.



I don't think so, if you read correctly the definition provided by wikipedia they all have some factual element that lacks in your concept.

Read Yellow Journalism again and then explain the Sinking of the Maine which is the cornerstone definition of Yellow Journalism. (ie the Spanish were blamed for the sinking by Hearst without any proof or facts.)



I'm not ignoring that, I even agree with you on certain issues concerning the same subject, but you appear to force this concept (Yellow Journalism) to reach places beyond it's meaning.

Tsk Tsk - I have stated something different.



Besides the pratical problem of intent, there's an irrelevancy of the intent in some cases of sensationalism where the intent is indiferent to consider certain description as over factual or simply factual. I fully agree with you, but again there's the practical problem of the intent. And there's the issue with your kind of lack of deligence that's the Yellow Journalism.

See your getting close



According to moral values.

Again ethics goes beyond just moral values.



Not exactly. That's because you give a moral value to the drawings, and that's ok, but it has nothing to do with facts. If the drawings were included in an informative article, depicting an state of things or a phenomenum in alternative ways that will be other case. And if that drawing generated so much anger, then they would act irresponsable is published again and again.
It's called analogy. It presents some similar properties so I use the same kind of judgement. This properties are in this case the fact that the gene and the responsability both define a concept.

Again the one must determine the intent of the drawings. Moral values,ethical values, and generalizations of people were placed into those drawings - regardless if you see them or not. Its obvious from this discussion that different people saw different things in the drawings.


.
An story? I think this was about a drawing, and not a comic for that matter. Red are you adjusting your facts to agree with your visions?

Not at all do a little research on the paper and the reason for the contest. The paper has a history of anti-immigrantion and anti-immigrant stories according to several sources, to include filled complaints about said stories.



And by the way the description of the action that you give in the bolded part, is not exactly relevant as morality goes, because every piece of journalism has that intent (ie it always wants to be selled and it always targets an specific element).

You are missing a key word.



I'm not trying to be clever Red only pointing my interpretation of your statement that goes like this (feel free to correct any missinterpretation):"If the intent was purely to inform, then the journalists in question acted responsibily". Notice how you clearly state "...intent was purely to inform". Again if the intent on any journalist publication is always to inform then this can only mean that they always act responsable, unless that you consider the intent as indiferent as posted above, when the article goes over the facts. Or alternatively that you consider that the intent is not always to inform, that will be a realistic approach, if I may add, because not every journalist piece has that purpose.

Yes indeed your getting close again - now to the story in question the very nature of the article being based upon a contest held by the paper brings that intent to purely inform into question.



So by the meaning of this, and using an old analogy, if the intent of the raped woman was to provoque men, then when she's raped the consequences are attached to her intent (in the analogy are present, again to similar elements, the state of mind generated and the consequences of such state, even more if they're causal). I'm correct?

Only if the woman's intent was to incite men to rape her. If her intent was solely to get men to look at her, she is not responsible for their acts.



Just making observations. Specially because you still consider it a piece of description and not of emotion or persuasion.

Don't go placing labels on my thoughts when you don't understand the arguement. Your arguement here shows that you have misunderstood my position all along. Sensationalist journalism (Yellow Journalism) contains all three elements you have mentioned.



Are you suggesting that I posted the excerpt of wikipedia without reading it or understanding it?

If you believe Yellow journalism means reporting the truth - then yes you mis-understood what it means.



Claustic response. Again nothing to argue, I've read it many times by now.
Well I presume that I do, otherwise I'll not post it would I? However instead of giving me that short answer, with not arguement in it, you could have saved another post and told me what I didn't realized.

In otherwords your statement there shows how how incorrect you are about the concept of Yellow Journalism, and that your attempt at a counter-arguement falls apart on its face. I suggest you re-read your quoted definition from Wikipedia and focus on the

The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting

[Redleg]

“WIth Freedom comes responsibility”: Why? Suddenly, I ask why we should accept this axiom? I want to be free to be a coward, to refuse the responsibility of my act. It is my right.

With rights comes responsiblities. You can attempt to not accept your responsiblity that comes along with your freedom, however in doing so you are also accepting that others do not have to face their responsiblity.



If I said something which offends people I refuse to be punched on the nose. The answer to my offence has to be at the same level, if not, I refuse to take responsibility for the actions of the person I offended. :laugh4:

Your getting warm.

[Lazul]

http://www.rootedlabs.com/muslim.swf :laugh4:


ghahahahaah!...... AHHAHAHAHAHAAH!..... (and so on and so forth). :laugh4:

yeah its an offencive film to muslims, except for those with a sense of humor.

[Brenus]

I just find this one. Quote from Victor Hugo (I am researching on him, actually).

"That which separates man from the brute is the notion of good and evil.... Hence that great and twofold sentiment in man of his liberty and his responsibility. He can be good or he can be wicked. That is an account he will have to settle. He can be guilty; and that — it is a striking fact, and one upon which I insist — is his greatness."

I thing it fit in the actual debate.

[Soulforged]

It lost it reason many pages back.Yesssss....

THere is no nuetral arguement in Freedom of Speech. Attempting to get to a nuetral arguement shows a lack of understanding on the concept of Freedom of Speech. You either accept that there is responsiblity or no responsiblity in Free Speech.I mean neutral in the sense of not attacking the one who does the other arguement (like you did now).

Didn't say conceal it - that is your term. I stated that the intent of the publications after the initial is questionable given the nature of the speech and the story in itself.Yes, but they should have responded by concealing it. Or no?

Nope it has always been about Freedom of Speech. Yellow Journalism is an irresponsible form of Free Speech.Both subjects are related. You're talking about irresponsability, and you say that they were irresponsable because they exercised a form of Yellow Journalism.

Read Yellow Journalism again and then explain the Sinking of the Maine which is the cornerstone definition of Yellow Journalism. (ie the Spanish were blamed for the sinking by Hearst without any proof or facts.)This one was easy to find. LINK (http://www.pbs.org/crucible/journalism.html). Again it talks about facts and forging facts.

Tsk Tsk - I have stated something different.This depends on your concept of Yellow Journalism wich I still believe to be different from the literal one.

See your getting close This only makes me more lost. I mean if you read my statement you'll notice (as in your comments) that the label of "irresponsabity" is conditionated to Yellow Journalism, and I clearly stated that this was an issue with you in the end, how can I be closer?. By the way, all the other things I said in the paragraph is what I believed from the very begining.

Again ethics goes beyond just moral values.I wonder how is that...Doesn't matter is unimportant for the discussion anyway.

Again the one must determine the intent of the drawings. Moral values,ethical values, and generalizations of people were placed into those drawings - regardless if you see them or not. Its obvious from this discussion that different people saw different things in the drawings.And I repeat I don't disagree with you in those points ("Moral values,ethical values, and generalizations of people were placed into those drawings") however for what I know many pieces of humor, even the ones posted in journals, have generalizations of some kind. And this is only that humor, not description of facts or forgery of facts.

Not at all do a little research on the paper and the reason for the contest. The paper has a history of anti-immigrantion and anti-immigrant stories according to several sources, to include filled complaints about said stories.Can you give at least the title of the original article in wich it was posted? I mean the article is old and I cannot give an answer without looking at it.


You are missing a key word.


I am saying the publisher of the cartoons exercised Yellow Journalism which is an irresponsible act. There intent was to sell their paper with a sensational story that targeted a specific element to increase its sells. Wich is...
Yes indeed your getting close again - now to the story in question the very nature of the article being based upon a contest held by the paper brings that intent to purely inform into question.

Only if the woman's intent was to incite men to rape her. If her intent was solely to get men to look at her, she is not responsible for their acts.So if the woman wanted to get raped it's not more rape, is it? However if you mean by that that the initial intent was to incite rape, then you're suggesting that the woman must pay for the consecuences.

Don't go placing labels on my thoughts when you don't understand the arguement. Your arguement here shows that you have misunderstood my position all along. Sensationalist journalism (Yellow Journalism) contains all three elements you have mentioned.It could be, but it has to be a description nontheless, wich informs or misinforms depending on the content. And I'm not simply "placing labels" I'm interpreting and trying to understand.

If you believe Yellow journalism means reporting the truth - then yes you mis-understood what it means.No mean that it's the sensationalist reporting of facts, wheter they're real or invented. Not of emotions or simple humoristic ideas, wich intent isn't to inform.

In otherwords your statement there shows how how incorrect you are about the concept of Yellow Journalism, and that your attempt at a counter-arguement falls apart on its face. I suggest you re-read your quoted definition from Wikipedia and focus on the

The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reportingAnd in repeating your same excerpt you will se the same word again "factual" wich means that the report has to refer to some fact or factual situation in the real world, not to the image of an idol, not to a fear, even less if it's only an expression of emotion or to persuade.

[Redleg]

I mean neutral in the sense of not attacking the one who does the other arguement (like you did now).

Tsk Tsk - no attack simple statement. Someone is getting defensive in their posting.



Yes, but they should have responded by concealing it. Or no?

Have I stated concealed it?



Both subjects are related. You're talking about irresponsability, and you say that they were irresponsable because they exercised a form of Yellow Journalism.

Again read what is written - I have not stated that they are not related.



This one was easy to find. LINK (http://www.pbs.org/crucible/journalism.html). Again it talks about facts and forging facts.

Your getting warm - however it seems your not reading the link you have provided.



This depends on your concept of Yellow Journalism wich I still believe to be different from the literal one.

Not at all - again review what Yellow Journalism is.



This only makes me more lost. I mean if you read my statement you'll notice (as in your comments) that the label of "irresponsabity" is conditionated to Yellow Journalism, and I clearly stated that this was an issue with you in the end, how can I be closer?.

Yellow Journalism is irresponsible journalism. It seems someone is easily confused.



By the way, all the other things I said in the paragraph is what I believed from the very begining.

And which you steered away from in the middle.



I wonder how is that...Doesn't matter is unimportant for the discussion anyway.

Then why bring it up?



And I repeat I don't disagree with you in those points ("Moral values,ethical values, and generalizations of people were placed into those drawings") however for what I know many pieces of humor, even the ones posted in journals, have generalizations of some kind. And this is only that humor, not description of facts or forgery of facts.

Again Caritures (SP) or cartoons of things are beyond just humor, especially when taking into account all the relevant information about the situation and the purpose behind the drawings.



Can you give at least the title of the original article in wich it was posted? I mean the article is old and I cannot give an answer without looking at it.
Wich is...

Go to Wikipedia with the name of the Newspaper or even type in Muslim cartoons. You can find it just as easy as I did. A google search of the Newspaper also turns up some interesting reading about its anti-immigrantion stance.



So if the woman wanted to get raped it's not more rape, is it? However if you mean by that that the initial intent was to incite rape, then you're suggesting that the woman must pay for the consecuences.

Oh I can play the rape analogy all day long. It means absolutely nothing in the context of what I am saying.



It could be, but it has to be a description nontheless, wich informs or misinforms depending on the content. And I'm not simply "placing labels" I'm interpreting and trying to understand.

Hince the discussion -



No mean that it's the sensationalist reporting of facts, wheter they're real or invented. Not of emotions or simple humoristic ideas, wich intent isn't to inform.

Your getting close - now add the rest of the definition to the term Yellow Journalism.




And in repeating your same excerpt you will se the same word again "factual" wich means that the report has to refer to some fact or factual situation in the real world, not to the image of an idol, not to a fear, even less if it's only an expression of emotion or to persuade.

Again refer to the complete definition of Yellow Journalism. I will give you a futher hint - Yellow Journalism does not have to be based upon fact. In the case of the report that the Spanish sunk the Battleship Maine, what part of the story was fact? I will give you a hint the Ship did sink, but it wasn't done by the Spanish.

It seems clear to me that your only interpating part of the definition of Yellow Journalism. Your not looking at the complete definition.


The term, as it commonly applies, refers to news organizations for whom sensationalism, profiteering, and in some cases propaganda and jingoism, take dominance over factual reporting

[Soulforged]

Tsk Tsk - no attack simple statement. Someone is getting defensive in their posting.I don't think so. You said that my arguement was not worth an answer.

Have I stated concealed it?How would you define the act of having something to show but not showing it, for whatever reasons. Is it not conceal? If not then put some other word there, like "hide".

Again read what is written - I have not stated that they are not related.And I never said that you did.

Your getting warm - however it seems your not reading the link you have provided.Again this kind of post...Red you could save much of pointless discussion by pointing out what was missed, don't you think.

Yellow Journalism is irresponsible journalism. It seems someone is easily confused.Not at all. You're the one stating that a non-factual expression can be Yellow Journalism.

And which you steered away from in the middle.?

Again Caritures (SP) or cartoons of things are beyond just humor, especially when taking into account all the relevant information about the situation and the purpose behind the drawings.Well then that's another subject, you're then admiting that they're not descriptions? If this is truth, let's suppose that you're right and the humor goes beyond humor when placed in a certain context, then the context will be a condition for the content of humor. If in certain case that context tells you that posting certain thing will be dangerous, then you shouldn't post it, not only giving up to the political pressures in game but also imagine if this context lasts, not forever, lets say twenty years, so for you it will be reasonable for the journalism in general to conceal (hide or whatever you like) any expression, wheter it's factual or not, just because there's political pressures in game? But in this particular case it's forever, no? I believe it's, fanatics are hard to disuade.

Go to Wikipedia with the name of the Newspaper or even type in Muslim cartoons. You can find it just as easy as I did. A google search of the Newspaper also turns up some interesting reading about its anti-immigrantion stance.muslim+cartoon in wikipedia comes with nothing, in Google it comes with everything. Maybe if I knew the name of the Newspaper you're refering to it will be easier.

Oh I can play the rape analogy all day long. It means absolutely nothing in the context of what I am saying.Ok.

Hince the discussion - Yes.

Your getting close - now add the rest of the definition to the term Yellow Journalism.Not sure if I understand you here...

Again refer to the complete definition of Yellow Journalism. I will give you a futher hint - Yellow Journalism does not have to be based upon fact. In the case of the report that the Spanish sunk the Battleship Maine, what part of the story was fact? I will give you a hint the Ship did sink, but it wasn't done by the Spanish.Let's see then. I agree that saying something like "invented facts" or "facts that not are" is contradictory, however you must understand at least that what I mean is that Yellow Journalism does exactly that, it creates an illusion about a fact, not about an emotion. The funny thing is that you try to compare it with the Maine case and end up saying that there was actually a fact, wich also means that this case is not even about an entire forgery but about a partial one.

[Redleg]

I don't think so. You said that my arguement was not worth an answer.

Tsk Tsk - again you are not even arguing a point. Just being defensive about a statement.



How would you define the act of having something to show but not showing it, for whatever reasons. Is it not conceal? If not then put some other word there, like "hide".

Neither conceal or hide. Not printing something that is offensive is neither hiding it nor is it concealing it. Its exercising a decision based upon a judgement.



And I never said that you did.
Tsk Tsk - it must be the language.



Again this kind of post...Red you could save much of pointless discussion by pointing out what was missed, don't you think.

You have missed it several times, no longer a necessity for me to point out your error if you refuse to listen. So I move on. Your stuck on the wrong thing and its up to you to figure it out.



Not at all. You're the one stating that a non-factual expression can be Yellow Journalism.

Of course I am - because it fits the definition of Yellow Journalism. Yellow Journalism is based upon many things - most of it having to do with sensationalism, jingoism, and other truth deception methods of informing others. Again look at the nature of the subject we are discussing, how the events took place, and why they took place. Look into why a paper with a history of anti-immigrantion decided to hold a contest in Denmark to solicate drawings of who the community precieved the issue at hand. It all smacks of sensationalism and profiteering, along with elements of propaganda and jingoism.



Well then that's another subject, you're then admiting that they're not descriptions?

Anything printed in a newspaper is a description, be it an editorial or a newscolumn. Political cartoons fall in line within that concept.



If this is truth, let's suppose that you're right and the humor goes beyond humor when placed in a certain context, then the context will be a condition for the content of humor. If in certain case that context tells you that posting certain thing will be dangerous, then you shouldn't post it, not only giving up to the political pressures in game but also imagine if this context lasts, not forever, lets say twenty years, so for you it will be reasonable for the journalism in general to conceal (hide or whatever you like) any expression, wheter it's factual or not, just because there's political pressures in game? But in this particular case it's forever, no? I believe it's, fanatics are hard to disuade.

Close but no cigar. Your attempting to have a in this instance you do this, and in this instance you do this scenerio. I have not stated that at all. Each situation must be judge by its own merits.



muslim+cartoon in wikipedia comes with nothing, in Google it comes with everything. Maybe if I knew the name of the Newspaper you're refering to it will be easier.

Its mentioned in the thread several times. Wasn't hard to find at all.



Not sure if I understand you here...
Let's see then. I agree that saying something like "invented facts" or "facts that not are" is contradictory, however you must understand at least that what I mean is that Yellow Journalism does exactly that, it creates an illusion about a fact, not about an emotion. The funny thing is that you try to compare it with the Maine case and end up saying that there was actually a fact, wich also means that this case is not even about an entire forgery but about a partial one.

And your beginning to get the picture. The Maine case was mentioned because it has all the elements of Yellow Journalism present. However your still incorrect about emotion in Yellow Journalism - the instance of the Maine generated a whole lot of emotion in its coverage, enough that led to a war. The story was geared to bring an emotional charge to the reading public.

[Redleg]

Soulforged

Suggested reading.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons

The name of the paper is in the very first line of the Wikipedia link.

Critics say that the cartoons are culturally insulting, Islamophobic, blasphemous, and intended to humiliate a marginalized minority. However, supporters of the cartoons say their publication exercises the right of free speech and that counter to the idea that Islam and its followers have been targeted in a discriminatory way, similar cartoons are made relative to other religions and their followers. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II. [1]

THe newspaper in question has even accepted responsiblity about the drawings.


Jyllands-Posten response
In response to protests from Danish Muslim groups Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version.[15][16] The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation and apology:

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.

About the paper.

From Wikipedia also for simplicity of source only.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten


Jyllands-Posten has been criticised by a number of organisations for having an anti-minority and anti-migrant agenda. In 2002 the Danish Council of the Press, criticised the newspaper for breaching its regulations on race while reporting on three Somalis charged with a crime. [12]. The relevant regulation was: "Any mention of family relations, occupation, race, nationality, faith or relationship to an organisation ought to be avoided, unless this has a direct relevance to the case,"

Two days before the national election of November 20, 2001, Jyllands-Posten published a story alleging asylum fraud by resident Palestinian refugees in Denmark. This was one factor contributing to the electoral success of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, whose political party campaigned for reduced immigration. The story was fraudulent and resulted in the sacking of the editor-in-chief Ulrik Haagerup on December 12, 2001 (Politiken, Berlingske Tidende, Information, B.T., December 13, 2001). However, Jyllands-Posten maintained that the dismissal of Haagerup had nothing to do with his responsibility for the articles in question (editorial on December 16, 2001). According to Weekendavisen, a newspaper, which pretty much shares the political line of Jyllands-Posten, the real reason for Haagerup's dismissal was a disagreement about the employment strategy (December 21, 2001).

Other sources on the paper and the issue are easily found.

Here is an interesting one from an unusal source.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/denm-f10.shtml


In a country renowned for its tolerance and openness, the social crisis and the betrayals carried out by the old working class organizations have opened the way for the emergence of political forces which systematically encourage xenophobia and racism. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten has played a prominent role in this process.

Last autumn Jyllands-Posten assigned 40 prominent Danish caricaturists to draw the Prophet Muhammad. Twelve responded and the results were published on September 30. The project was deliberately designed to provoke.

[Mujalumbo]

The cartoons were published by an Egyptian paper on Oct. 17., interestingly enough, without major incident.

It wasn't until a certain Iman travelled to the Middle East with three fabricated cartoons that the s#!t really hit the fan.

Hmmm, suspicious...

[Soulforged]

If you see any comment of yours wihtout an answer is just to save space and continue with a constructive discussion and not a pointless one, if you see that there's a point that should be adressed then just tell me.
Neither conceal or hide. Not printing something that is offensive is neither hiding it nor is it concealing it. Its exercising a decision based upon a judgement. Yes, hiding. :rolleyes: Come on Red, don't you think that we're above this silly play of words by now?

Of course I am - because it fits the definition of Yellow Journalism. Yellow Journalism is based upon many things - most of it having to do with sensationalism, jingoism, and other truth deception methods of informing others. Again look at the nature of the subject we are discussing, how the events took place, and why they took place. Look into why a paper with a history of anti-immigrantion decided to hold a contest in Denmark to solicate drawings of who the community precieved the issue at hand. It all smacks of sensationalism and profiteering, along with elements of propaganda and jingoism.Yes but you're missing the key term quoted by yourself "factual information". In this case you're only stating consequences and context, that doesn't make for a sound definition, and it's all sensationalism, jingoism and whatever you like, until you proove that all of this is based upon some factual situation that should have been informed you don't have a point.

Anything printed in a newspaper is a description, be it an editorial or a newscolumn. Political cartoons fall in line within that concept.What does this decribes?http://encontrarte.aporrea.org/imagenes/9/SATIRA.jpg. No everything is not to describe, or you don't know what "to describe" means. This is simply to express, the description is done always based upon an state of things in the real world as it's perceived.

Close but no cigar. Your attempting to have a in this instance you do this, and in this instance you do this scenerio. I have not stated that at all. Each situation must be judge by its own merits.Dogdy. That's not at all what I did, you could replace any abstract enunciation that I did and replace it by the concret situation that is happening today. Now I ask you again if it seems reasonable to you, and that means benning this images until the mob gets what they want or perhaps forever considering the situation that determines your supposed judgement.

And your beginning to get the picture. The Maine case was mentioned because it has all the elements of Yellow Journalism present. However your still incorrect about emotion in Yellow Journalism - the instance of the Maine generated a whole lot of emotion in its coverage, enough that led to a war. The story was geared to bring an emotional charge to the reading public.I'm not saying that it should be emptied of emotion (in fact that's usually the cause of sensationalism, jingoism,etc), however it always must have some factual element in it to be Yellow Journalism and always have the intent to inform.

Thanks for the article.

Suggested reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ammad_cartoons

The name of the paper is in the very first line of the Wikipedia link.
From the article:
The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, were accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the conservative daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted approximately 40 cartoonists, and asked them to draw the prophet as they saw him.Hardly informative and hardly (the drawings) descriptive as they're expression of emotions as any artist. Even the "prophet" as known is an idol, as such ideal. As such not part of the real world. Besides there's no actual depection of a "real" Muhammad as far as I know. And though I find some of them to be morally regreatable I find many works of art to be morally regreatable, not for that I tell the drawers that they were irresponsable (plus the many unreasonable consequences that that will bring).

Jyllands-Posten response
In response to protests from Danish Muslim groups Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version.[15][16] The second letter was dated 30 January 2006, and includes the following explanation and apology:

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize. Then why are you protesting? In anycase this doesn't make it right, that something happened doesn't say anything about if it should have happened or not.

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...] Exactly, and that's also related to lack of responsability, the only responsability will be on case of factual reporting, it would have been Yellow Journalism, for example, if the editors intentionally edited the drawings.
The republishing in other papers:
In 2005, the Muhammad cartoons controversy received only minor media attention outside of Denmark. Six of the cartoons were reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on October 17, 2005[41][42][43] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but publication did not provoke any reactions nor condemnations from either religious or government authorities. Some or all of the cartoons were reprinted between October 2005 and the end of January 2006 in major European newspapers from the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia, Belgium and France. Very soon after, as protests grew, there were further re-publications around the globe, but mostly in continental Europe.No reaction at all until February, when the unreasonable demands (" group of Danish Imams lobbied decision-makers in the Middle East. A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries.[3] Rumours spread via SMS and word-of-mouth.[4] The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to ensure that such cartoons would not be published again.") were not "heard". Chaos followed. Now how can the papers publish them at all when the consequences are future? If they do, what are the consequences: any employee who refuses to abide should be fired, possibly jailed (suspended?) or maybe even the suspenssion, fine or punishment of the entire company (even by closing it?)? Well that actually happened after. So before your situation they should have judged that way, they should have been on the side of the demands and not on the side of free speech, they should have been deligent no matter the profound consequences that this could have in the principles that a society defends, or more importantly in the same people that live by that principle. Because you see it's not enough for a paper to ban (even that's a wrong to me but...) an expression it has to enforce that rule in some form. And in this particular case, the demands of the muslim group protesting, wich were at least to me unreasonable, could not have been met, only at a high price, what would mean that this situation would have developed the same way nontheless.

Last autumn Jyllands-Posten assigned 40 prominent Danish caricaturists to draw the Prophet Muhammad. Twelve responded and the results were published on September 30. The project was deliberately designed to provoke.I wonder how they knew that? Anyway that still doesn't talk about irresponsability, even less without knowing the consequences of such action.

[Redleg]

If you see any comment of yours wihtout an answer is just to save space and continue with a constructive discussion and not a pointless one, if you see that there's a point that should be adressed then just tell me.Yes, hiding. :rolleyes: Come on Red, don't you think that we're above this silly play of words by now?

The whole discussion is one silly play of words :dizzy2: Self censorship is not hiding something.



Yes but you're missing the key term quoted by yourself "factual information".

Refer back to the definition - again it does not mean it has to be based upon factual information - it uses the tactics mentioned take dominance over factual reporting

And you want me not to play silly word games - when you are not even attempting to follow the definition that you yourself linked. Tsk Tsk.



In this case you're only stating consequences and context, that doesn't make for a sound definition, and it's all sensationalism, jingoism and whatever you like, until you proove that all of this is based upon some factual situation that should have been informed you don't have a point.

Tsk Tsk - your lost and confused - try again.



What does this decribes?http://encontrarte.aporrea.org/imagenes/9/SATIRA.jpg. No everything is not to describe, or you don't know what "to describe" means. This is simply to express, the description is done always based upon an state of things in the real world as it's perceived.

Different subject different audience different outcome.



Dogdy. That's not at all what I did, you could replace any abstract enunciation that I did and replace it by the concret situation that is happening today. Now I ask you again if it seems reasonable to you, and that means benning this images until the mob gets what they want or perhaps forever considering the situation that determines your supposed judgement.

Tsk tsk - you have missed the point all together. Oh well you can lead a horse to water but you can not force him to drink.



I'm not saying that it should be emptied of emotion (in fact that's usually the cause of sensationalism, jingoism,etc), however it always must have some factual element in it to be Yellow Journalism and always have the intent to inform.

Incorrect - Yellow Journalism does not have to have some factual element.




Thanks for the article.





From the article:Hardly informative and hardly (the drawings) descriptive as they're expression of emotions as any artist. Even the "prophet" as known is an idol, as such ideal. As such not part of the real world. Besides there's no actual depection of a "real" Muhammad as far as I know. And though I find some of them to be morally regreatable I find many works of art to be morally regreatable, not for that I tell the drawers that they were irresponsable (plus the many unreasonable consequences that that will bring).

Freedom of Speech means that one must accept responsiblity - which means one can criticize any speech in which they feel needs to be criticized. Calling the drawing irresponsible fits within that concept.



Then why are you protesting? In anycase this doesn't make it right, that something happened doesn't say anything about if it should have happened or not.

Because some have stated that criticism of the drawings can not be done. I can call the drawing unacceptable because I find them unacceptable. Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity.



Exactly, and that's also related to lack of responsability, the only responsability will be on case of factual reporting, it would have been Yellow Journalism, for example, if the editors intentionally edited the drawings.

Tsk Tsk - read the definition of Yellow Journalism again.



The republishing in other papers:No reaction at all until February, when the unreasonable demands (" group of Danish Imams lobbied decision-makers in the Middle East. A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries.[3] Rumours spread via SMS and word-of-mouth.[4] The foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to ensure that such cartoons would not be published again.") were not "heard". Chaos followed. Now how can the papers publish them at all when the consequences are future? If they do, what are the consequences: any employee who refuses to abide should be fired, possibly jailed (suspended?) or maybe even the suspenssion, fine or punishment of the entire company (even by closing it?)? Well that actually happened after. So before your situation they should have judged that way, they should have been on the side of the demands and not on the side of free speech, they should have been deligent no matter the profound consequences that this could have in the principles that a society defends, or more importantly in the same people that live by that principle. Because you see it's not enough for a paper to ban (even that's a wrong to me but...) an expression it has to enforce that rule in some form. And in this particular case, the demands of the muslim group protesting, wich were at least to me unreasonable, could not have been met, only at a high price, what would mean that this situation would have developed the same way nontheless.

From what you wrote here - try explaining the Inmans going to the Danish prosecutor back in October if nothing happened until Jan/Feb.



I wonder how they knew that? Anyway that still doesn't talk about irresponsability, even less without knowing the consequences of such action.

Tsk Tsk - what do you think provoking something is? It is an irresponsible act. Its an interesting write up from a marxist/socialist standpoint. I found it interesting to read from that prospective only.

[Soulforged]

The whole discussion is one silly play of words :dizzy2: Self censorship is not hiding something.Ok Red have it your way.

Refer back to the definition - again it does not mean it has to be based upon factual information - it uses the tactics mentioned take dominance over factual reportingIt's amazing how two people see two different things about a same statement. Look Red, if you're about to report something factual, and you don't do so because you charge your report with emotions such as jingoism, it's still a lack of factual reporting, wich presumes that there has to be some fact. In a piece of humor you don't presume it, you only have the piece disconnected from any actual state of things, you can try to correlate it to things of the real world, but the connection is not substancial nor necessary. That's the difference between inquiring meanings to communicate and to do a silly play of words.

Different subject different audience different outcome.I supposed as much.

Freedom of Speech means that one must accept responsiblity - which means one can criticize any speech in which they feel needs to be criticized. Calling the drawing irresponsible fits within that concept.Ok yer acting without deligence falls between the concept. But to me you haven't stablished clear and reasonable limits to that deligence.

Because some have stated that criticism of the drawings can not be done. I can call the drawing unacceptable because I find them unacceptable. Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity.But I never said that, and I never was against that point.

From what you wrote here - try explaining the Inmans going to the Danish prosecutor back in October if nothing happened until Jan/Feb.I had read that part. However a judicial procedure is not the same as an actual violent reaction as the subsequents riots. And that's not all, because as said the demands would never be accepted, at least for rational beings and that will generate the same conflict again and again. Selfcensorship and political correctness would have reingned, man would have been fired (as they did) unjustly and entire companies would have been punished. Not to mention that that's exactly the consequence of bad delimited deligence, wich only considers moral points of view in the moment of acting, and is blind to the pragmatic consequences of such deligent act that will be even more morally regreatable.

Tsk Tsk - what do you think provoking something is? It is an irresponsible act. Its an interesting write up from a marxist/socialist standpoint. I found it interesting to read from that prospective only.Socialists views tend to consider objective law (positive law) as the only valid point. The ideologic point of view considers, for that matter, that all individuals own themselves to the rest and they lack of personal rights, such as...freedom of speech.

[Redleg]

Ok Red have it your way.

You can only have it your way at Burger King.



It's amazing how two people see two different things about a same statement.

Then you might want to check out the definition a little more closely.



Look Red, if you're about to report something factual, and you don't do so because you charge your report with emotions such as jingoism, it's still a lack of factual reporting, wich presumes that there has to be some fact.

Incorrect - once again refer to the Hearst news on Sinking of the Battleship Maine - the premier examble of Yellow Journalism.



In a piece of humor you don't presume it, you only have the piece disconnected from any actual state of things, you can try to correlate it to things of the real world, but the connection is not substancial nor necessary. That's the difference between inquiring meanings to communicate and to do a silly play of words.

Political cartoons are again a prime examble of Yellow Journalism.



I supposed as much.

And that is why you got the answer you got.



Ok yer acting without deligence falls between the concept. But to me you haven't stablished clear and reasonable limits to that deligence.

That is because I don't need to - the issue is not one of legality, but of priniciple.

With Freedom comes Responsiblity.



But I never said that, and I never was against that point.

Then your whole premise is mote.



I had read that part. However a judicial procedure is not the same as an actual violent reaction as the subsequents riots. And that's not all, because as said the demands would never be accepted, at least for rational beings and that will generate the same conflict again and again. Selfcensorship and political correctness would have reingned, man would have been fired (as they did) unjustly and entire companies would have been punished. Not to mention that that's exactly the consequence of bad delimited deligence, wich only considers moral points of view in the moment of acting, and is blind to the pragmatic consequences of such deligent act that will be even more morally regreatable.

you have aimed at the dart board and missed


Socialists views tend to consider objective law (positive law) as the only valid point. The ideologic point of view considers, for that matter, that all individuals own themselves to the rest and they lack of personal rights, such as...freedom of speech.

Like I stated - I found the source interesting in its take on the situation. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with them, or that I didn't understand the logic behind thier points.

:laugh4:

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Incorrect - once again refer to the Hearst news on Sinking of the Battleship Maine - the premier examble of Yellow Journalism.Been there, read that. Nothing new to add.

Political cartoons are again a prime examble of Yellow Journalism.Only if they're intended to have some connection with actual developments, such as the war on Irak, but it still has not description.

That is because I don't need to - the issue is not one of legality, but of priniciple.

With Freedom comes Responsiblity.Never said it was about legality. Not only in legal matters the limits are clearly defined (in fact they lack that characteristic many times). You assume that it's legality. What I mean is that you forget to point out what will be the consequences of that "acting with deligence" and you consider the act in itself morally regreatable, when in fact that's the most morally acceptable reaction against the uprising of the unreasonable.

[Redleg]

[QUOTE=Redleg]
Been there, read that. Nothing new to add.

The case of the horse being lead to water, but not drinking.



Only if they're intended to have some connection with actual developments, such as the war on Irak, but it still has not description.

Incorrect. Yellow Journalism does not have to have a connection to actual developments. Propaganda and Jingoism are also consider Yellow Journalism when it is published by newsprint


Never said it was about legality. Not only in legal matters the limits are clearly defined (in fact they lack that characteristic many times). You assume that it's legality.

I assume nothing.



What I mean is that you forget to point out what will be the consequences of that "acting with deligence" and you consider the act in itself morally regreatable, when in fact that's the most morally acceptable reaction against the uprising of the unreasonable.

Tsk Tsk - again read what is written verus what you think is written. I find both unacceptable - just like I have stated several times.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]The case of the horse being lead to water, but not drinking.Whatever you say.

Incorrect. Yellow Journalism does not have to have a connection to actual developments. Propaganda and Jingoism are also consider Yellow Journalism when it is published by newsprintAnd you say that Propaganda and Jingoism are not connected to actual developments or to any other state of reality? Or that they cannot be connected?

I assume nothing.It seems so, because I never mentioned anything related with "legal" on that post.

Tsk Tsk - again read what is written verus what you think is written. I find both unacceptable - just like I have stated several times.Let's suppose you do, it's pretty contradictory, but let's do that. If you've such moral conflict, it appears that you anyway resolved it by standing on the side of selfcensorship, or am I again incorrect?

[The Black Ship]

Have you two thought of PM?

[Redleg]

[QUOTE=Redleg] Whatever you say.
And you say that Propaganda and Jingoism are not connected to actual developments or to any other state of reality? Or that they cannot be connected?

Haven't said any such thing - again jumping to conclusions not based upon any evidence of what I have stated, hiding it behind asking a question.



It seems so, because I never mentioned anything related with "legal" on that post.

I guess I could go find the post that you said legality and quote it. But I won't. :laugh4: :juggle2:



Let's suppose you do, it's pretty contradictory, but let's do that. If you've such moral conflict, it appears that you anyway resolved it by standing on the side of selfcensorship, or am I again incorrect?

Incorrect - one must think before they speak when they face a moral conflict.

[Soulforged]

Haven't said any such thing - again jumping to conclusions not based upon any evidence of what I have stated, hiding it behind asking a question. Not hiding anything behind anything, You're assuming things. I only interpreted your statement. Look:
Incorrect. Yellow Journalism does not have to have a connection to actual developments. Propaganda and Jingoism are also consider Yellow Journalism when it is published by newsprint

I guess I could go find the post that you said legality and quote it. But I won't.You'll find it many times but not in that post.

Incorrect - one must think before they speak when they face a moral conflict.*looking for logical connection between this answer and my question* Anyway what I said is that you resolved your moral conflict from the side of the unreasonable. Besides, in regards to your apparently disconnected answer, I think it's pretty difficult for an organization to do things without "thinking", there are what...like 200 heads in a line.

[Redleg]

Not hiding anything behind anything, You're assuming things. I only interpreted your statement. Look:

Then instead of interpreting what you think the statement means - you should attempt to understand what is written.



You'll find it many times but not in that post.

Several of your posts in this thread speak of legality.



*looking for logical connection between this answer and my question*

That's because you don't want to conclude that Freedom of Speech requires one to exercise responsiblity.



Anyway what I said is that you resolved your moral conflict from the side of the unreasonable. Besides, in regards to your apparently disconnected answer, I think it's pretty difficult for an organization to do things without "thinking", there are what...like 200 heads in a line.

Again thinking about your actions does not requate to unreasonable. Someone does not understand the Freedom and the responsiblities that come with it. It must be from living under the thump of oppressive governments. (a cheap shot for a cheap shot.)

[Soulforged]

Then instead of interpreting what you think the statement means - you should attempt to understand what is written.I wonder what difference exists between the first part of that statement and the second one (first part bolded, second part is normal)

Several of your posts in this thread speak of legality.What I said. But not the one you answered to.

That's because you don't want to conclude that Freedom of Speech requires one to exercise responsiblity.I do accept it, but perhaps that deligence in such a case as this one will be a little counter productive measuring the consequences.

Again thinking about your actions does not requate to unreasonable. No that's truth, and one of us is doing exactly that, perhaps a little experiment could show who is the unreasonable here.
Someone does not understand the Freedom and the responsiblities that come with it. It must be from living under the thump of oppressive governments. (a cheap shot for a cheap shot.)I don't remember any cheap shot from my side. I also don't remember living under the thumb of an opressive government, I mean surely my government is opressive but not much more than yours, if opression was a measurable quantity I mean.:inquisitive:

[Redleg]

I wonder what difference exists between the first part of that statement and the second one (first part bolded, second part is normal)


Probably something you understand but refuse to acknowledge.



What I said. But not the one you answered to.

And yet you attempt to deny it. :laugh4: :oops:



I do accept it, but perhaps that deligence in such a case as this one will be a little counter productive measuring the consequences.

Responsiblity is part of the concept of Freedom. Which is exactly what I have been stating.



No that's truth, and one of us is doing exactly that, perhaps a little experiment could show who is the unreasonable here.

You will be surprised how it turns out. :inquisitive:



I don't remember any cheap shot from my side. I also don't remember living under the thumb of an opressive government,

Oh you have several of them -



I mean surely my government is opressive but not much more than yours, if opression was a measurable quantity I mean.:inquisitive:

LOL - you missed it again.

[Soulforged]

Probably something you understand but refuse to acknowledge.
And yet you attempt to deny it. :laugh4: :oops:
Responsiblity is part of the concept of Freedom. Which is exactly what I have been stating.
You will be surprised how it turns out. :inquisitive:
Oh you have several of them -
LOL - you missed it again.Ok Red, enough with this. Let's say that responsability was necessary and you're right. Have good weekend.:2thumbsup: (after all this isn't a deathmatch is it?)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh come on, Soulforged, don't give up just yet.

Me and several other Orgahs have turned this into a wager. And my ten bucks said this thread would last well into april....:embarassed:

[Soulforged]

Oh come on, Soulforged, don't give up just yet.

Me and several other Orgahs have turned this into a wager. And my ten bucks said this thread would last well into april....:embarassed:
Well if we continued to argue in circles then you would have been 10 bucks richer, but Red is a heavy weight :laugh4: (P.S. Literally I cannot bear his weight over my shoulders ~;) )

[Cronos Impera]

The media is solely responsible for the misunderstandings as most journalists portray foreign events as exotic and thrilling. Such journalists shouldn't have the freedom of speech as they can't handle it. Journalism is about creating bridges between cultures not breaking them. When you are publishing cartoons of Allah or Mohamed and expect people to respect you because " you are a free journalist".

[Viking]

When you are publishing cartoons of Allah or Mohamed and expect people to respect you because " you are a free journalist".


At least one wouldn`t expect people to burn down embassies. :uhoh:

[Cronos Impera]

At least one wouldn`t expect people to burn down embassies. :uhoh:
Errr....willingly taunting some muslim extremists is a little suicidal. Don't you think. You can choose between :hide: or :viking:. Anyway you won't get :hanged: or :stupido::rifle:. No :stupido: + no :hanged: = :viking: + :sultan:
A silent journalist may write again.

[Viking]

Errr....willingly taunting some muslim extremists is a little suicidal. Don't you think. You can choose between :hide: or :viking:. Anyway you won't get :hanged: or :stupido::rifle:. No :stupido: + no :hanged: = :viking: + :sultan:
A silent journalist may write again.

So you suggest us to just shut up, and let muslim extremist indirectly control us?

I`m not saying that we should provoke them, but those people that do, we should protect for all that it is worth.

[AntiochusIII]

The media is solely responsible for the misunderstandings as most journalists portray foreign events as exotic and thrilling. Such journalists shouldn't have the freedom of speech as they can't handle it. Journalism is about creating bridges between cultures not breaking them. When you are publishing cartoons of Allah or Mohamed and expect people to respect you because " you are a free journalist".Err, no. The important half of journalism is about reporting news to the public. It has nothing to do directly with acting like a diplomat. The other half of the journalism world has something to do with expression of opinions by journalists themselves--the bias part.

And silence under intimidation, directly or indirectly, deserve neither praise nor respect.

[Brenus]

“The important half of journalism is about reporting news to the public. It has nothing to do directly with acting like a diplomat. The other half of the journalism world has something to do with expression of opinions by journalists themselves--the bias part.” Well, in my experience it is a 1/10 for reporting, 9/10 to increase the selling of the newspaper. Well, you can call it their opinion.

[AntiochusIII]

“The important half of journalism is about reporting news to the public. It has nothing to do directly with acting like a diplomat. The other half of the journalism world has something to do with expression of opinions by journalists themselves--the bias part.” Well, in my experience it is a 1/10 for reporting, 9/10 to increase the selling of the newspaper. Well, you can call it their opinion.Ah, theoretically it should've been the exact reverse of your experience, but I was being generous with the journalists, since the topic at hand is not about how factual and effective the news media is.

Of course, I'm aware of the bias that go through the news production process, and even the news reporting itself. But that has nothing to do with all those claims that seem to relate that the news media should serve a purpose it is not designed to serve, like being multicultural diplomats.