-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Does anyone think they published these cartoon in oerder to cause this reaction?
It seems unclear whether the original publication in Denmark had that intention or not. Depending on how you interpret the situation, the answer could be yes or no. However, the republication a week or so ago had nothing to do with provoking anyone, it was a statement about freedom of speech made shortly after the Danish newspaper apologized.
*edit*
I see I was beaten to the submit button on this one so I feel the need to expound. The initial publication seems to have been done to point out the reluctance of illustrators to deal with the issue. Depending on how you look at it, that could mean that it was their attempt to address a freedom of speech issue OR it could mean that they were trying to flout a Muslim taboo. The first would not be meant as provocation, the second would.
The republications were simply a protest over the fact that the Danish newspaper was essentially forced into apologizing. The various other papers published the cartoon as a form of protest over what they saw as an infringement on free speech. As such, that's not specifically aimed at insulting anyone, it was meant as support for what they saw as an infringed upon right.
At least, that's my take on it.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all.
Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.
Gertz:
"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."
To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.
How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
the nationalism is growing at a tremendously rate here, both in me and all around. in the end I mainly fear for the muslim family across the street, when this gets into proportions again. damn I hate being forced upon muslim laws.
http://www.vg.no/bilder/edrum/1139324704290_547.jpg :laugh4:
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Exactly, the whole premise of freedom of speech is that it applies to all people through nearly whatever they may say, IMO only modes of expression should be able to be controlled by the government.
Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.
Quote:
Gertz:
"Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas."
To draw filthy, absolutely insulting, pictures on a wall is a right. At the core of my view of free speech: It is only my judgment that such pictures are filthy, and the government should never be in the position to tell us what is an absolute. Violating this principle violates the very premise of it; put more clearly, if free speech is not an absolute right, if there are exceptions on which content of expression may and may not be expressed, then there is no reason to believe that the right should be there at all.
Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.
Quote:
How do you mean "responsibility"? The person doing some thing cannot avoid being "responsible" for it. It is not a matter of our choice, or some judgement by others, it is the very definition of the word. If you mean to say that somehow it is van gogh's fault for his death, you are terribly mistaken. Of course, if he didn't express his views, he most likely would not have been murdered, but that is certainly not to say that he is responsible for his own murder. There was nothing in his expression which unerringly led to his death, and if he cannot be said to have caused it, he is certainly not "responsible" for it. Saying that he should have seen such a thing coming is different quite different.
Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.
What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Modes of expression fall within the concept of Freedom of Speech. Access is part of the freedom.
Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.
Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.
What I am saying is that the publishers of the papers have a responsiblity inherient within the concept of Freedom of Speech which goes beyond the individual right to Free Speech. With Freedom comes responsiblity.
Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Its a good thing no western governments are curtailing the speech. Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountablity.
Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Read what was written. Did I state Van Gogh was at fault for his death? A strawman arguement is nothing but a strawman arguement. Was Van Gogh responsible for his art and his artistic interpation? Did he behave in a responsible manner concerning his art? Did he exercise his freedom to express his ideas? The answer to this is yes. The individaul responsible for his death is the individual who committed the crime.
It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Dear Redleg, what are you on about? These generalities are disputed by no one.
And yet you claim this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.
It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.
Or how about this comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
Ah yes, that is another classic misunderstanding: the notion that freedom applies only to the Leonardo's of this world and not to the bathroom door drawers. Freedom is indivisible, it applies to all. One man's bathroom door doodle is another man's fresco.
If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.
Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speech.
The muslims are wrong for using violence. You are wrong for saying that an American or anyone for that matter can not find the method or the message unacceptable.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Actually, many are, have, and most likely will continue to. The religious hatred bill, though much better in its amended state, is an example. The exception SCOTUS has made for obscenity is allowing it, and many states have laws in the area restricting it. I do not understand what you mean when you say people must act responsibly and with accountability. (This is not the Pindar I-do-not-undesrtand-what-you-mean, God bless his soul, I do not understand what you are saying.) If someone has a view, they should not have to be scared of expressing it, whatever it is. I only favor self censorship when one believes the expression will offend, and they do not wish to, and in such a case I actually think that a proper discussion will help a person.
Self censorship is part of responsiblity and accountablity for what you say.
Quote:
It is not a purposeful construction of a strawman. If you accept that his death is no fault of his own, I wonder what you mean by "responsible." If you mean that the newspaper somehow meant it to inspire rage, I think you are mistaken. AFAIK, this was a local paper, and the imams went around preaching about them, when they were not meant for a muslim audience. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong.)
If the paper meant the drawing to inspire rage they did not operate in a responsible fashion in regards to speech.
Just because one has the Freedom to speak however they so choice, does not make it the responsible thing to do.
Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no Freedom.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It also debunks the claim that Julius Ceaser burnt it down (by mistake :dizzy2: ) and the claim by Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
So no one did it then. :laugh4:
I've thought about this. I have to say I got caught with my trousers down on this one. Fair play to the posters who saw it. :shame:
Let the debate continue. :inquisitive:
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
It seems you did dispute the general concept of Free Speech being able to find the form as being unacceptable.
You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable? Ok I give you that, but it's part of the Speech, or it's something like movement, action or association?
Quote:
If you believe in Freedom of Speech then you have to accept the responsiblity that comes with that Freedom. To include the possibility that someone will disagree with your method.
But nobody disagrees with that generality. You're pointing exceptions, or even better, consecuences of the use of this freedom, but nobody disagrees on the general concept.
Quote:
Violence as a form of protest is not an acceptable form of speech. Telling someone that they can not find the method and content of the speech unacceptable falls within the same aspect. Your attempting to curtail dissent of the speech
Violence is not always unacceptable, it's only unacceptable if it affects a third party. I can break my own TVs as a form of protest against globalization, and it will be violence (if you consider it like the use of force) and it will also be acceptable. But as I see it freedom of speech it's absolute, the method is forbidden because it obstaculizes the freedom of other people, not just because it's violent.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable?
Strawman warning - that was not what was stated.
Quote:
Ok I give you that, but it's part of the Speech, or it's something like movement, action or association?
In the concept of freedom of speech - you can state whatever you please, I on the other hand can tell you that I find your speech unacceptable.
Quote:
But nobody disagrees with that generality. You're pointing exceptions, or even better, consecuences of the use of this freedom, but nobody disagrees on the general concept.
Oh but someone has disagreed with the concept. Again refering to Adrian's comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian
Brother Solypsist, it seems that like other Americans who share the Bush administration's point of view that the cartoons are 'unacceptable', you haven't the faintest idea what this is all about.
Again a person can understand what the message is about, and still find it unacceptable. So what the point is - when someone exercises free speech they also open themselves up to criticism from those who disagree with them. As long as the criticism is not one of advocating violence against the individual, that criticism is just as valid and is an exercise of free speech.
Quote:
Violence is not always unacceptable, it's only unacceptable if it affects a third party.
Violence as a form of free speech that advocates the destruction of others and their property was what was meant. If you didn't understand that, you were not paying attention to the words used.
Quote:
I can break my own TVs as a form of protest against globalization, and it will be violence (if you consider it like the use of force) and it will also be acceptable.
Smashing your own property does not count as violence - unless your smashing your property against someone else's body or property.
Quote:
But as I see it freedom of speech it's absolute, the method is forbidden because it obstaculizes the freedom of other people, not just because it's violent.
There are no absolutes in freedom of speech. You are not permitted to advocate violence in your speech in most societies.
With Freedom comes responsibility. No responsiblity, no freedom.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Strawman warning - that was not what was stated.
I should first know what's an "strawman". If I look the definition in the dictionary it aludes to the object made of straw in the form of a man, usually male, wich is used to scare the crows that surround the crop. But if I get the metaphore right, then not it wasn't an strawman, perhaps I misunderstood your use of unacceptable. NOTE: It seems that the term "strawman" or "strawman arguement" plagues your posts. As I see it, and only guessing it's meaning, it appears to be an arbitrary association.
Quote:
In the concept of freedom of speech - you can state whatever you please, I on the other hand can tell you that I find your speech unacceptable.
But you disagree on the method.
Quote:
Again a person can understand what the message is about, and still find it unacceptable. So what the point is - when someone exercises free speech they also open themselves up to criticism from those who disagree with them. As long as the criticism is not one of advocating violence against the individual, that criticism is just as valid and is an exercise of free speech.
Yes I agree with that, that's the basic dialect. But now that I understand your concept of violence everything is clearer.
Quote:
There are no absolutes in freedom of speech. You are not permitted to advocate violence in your speech in most societies.
I notice your choice of words, and you should notice mine, AS I SEE IT, wich means that following my valoration there shouldn't be any limitations. When there are obstacles to other's freedom, in all it's aspects, then by very definition is not more freedom. So it's not restricted, it simply isn't.
PS: I'm seeing that if you continue with that possition of the process used to show disagreement this will eventually come to the definition of revolution. Perhaps I'm wrong.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Wow. This thread is growing growing growing.
I thought that this was a solid article:
**Warning: May offend Muslims. Also some very light use of passionate language**
Why are we cowering to Islam?!?!?!?!?
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
I should first know what's an "strawman". If I look the definition in the dictionary it aludes to the object made of straw in the form of a man, usually male, wich is used to scare the crows that surround the crop. But if I get the metaphore right, then not it wasn't an strawman, perhaps I misunderstood your use of unacceptable. NOTE: It seems that the term "strawman" or "strawman arguement" plagues your posts. As I see it, and only guessing it's meaning, it appears to be an arbitrary association.
You need to look up what a logical fallacy called strawman actually is. Needless to say its a distortion of what was stated so that you can disprove the individuals statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
You say that there's some kind of freedom that's unacceptable?
Now did I say that there was some kind of freedom that was unacceptable, or did I say the message and drawings were unacceptable?
Your question falls into the catergory of a distortion of what was stated.
Quote:
But you disagree on the method.
No I disagree with the drawing - the method was to print the drawings in a newspaper. The drawings are an unacceptable message becasue they are a distortion, and the voicing of my opinion is that the newspaper did not exercise proper responsiblity in the the publication of the cartoons. Not so much the initial paper printing of them - but the subsequent printins.
Quote:
Yes I agree with that, that's the basic dialect. But now that I understand your concept of violence everything is clearer.
We are exercising the fundmental freedom of speech - discourse on issues that we might or might not agree with. Unacceptable forms of discourse have been mentioned.
Quote:
I notice your choice of words, and you should notice mine, AS I SEE IT, wich means that following my valoration there shouldn't be any limitations. When there are obstacles to other's freedom, in all it's aspects, then by very definition is not more freedom. So it's not restricted, it simply isn't.
Yes indeed I notice your choice of words - and again societies don't allow you the freedom to use violent speech if it is direct at another. Again with Freedom comes responsibility.
Quote:
PS: I'm seeing that if you continue with that possition of the process used to show disagreement this will eventually come to the definition of revolution. Perhaps I'm wrong.
You are incorrect. Freedom of Speech is not a concept that necessarily leads to revolution. People are always free to speak their minds in a responsible manner in most free societies. No need for a revolution to increase that freedom.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
These rioters need to calm down. Living in a free society means sometimes you're going to hear and see things you find offensive.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
In the end it boils down to this, Denmark shouldn't have drawn cartoons, and France shouldn't have had electricity.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Fragony, I can agree with you that France should never have been allowed to leave the Dark Ages. I still feel that they shoud return the ancestral land that they annexed from England. (Sorry, going on on a bit of a rant there...)
It is basically a misunderstanding between cultures. They place religion (Islam - none of the others) above everything else, we place (most of the time) freedom of speech. A parallel would be how the West places the individual above all else, whereas in China it is the good of the many that take presidence over the wishes of the individual. Both have advantages, and it is a matter of choice whish should be followed.
~:smoking:
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Frag: that definitely sounds like what these gits would have liked.
Has France fully calmed down yet? or is it just officially calm as violence is down to average levels?
Edit: removed bad word, *spanks self*
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
I'm sorry for perhaps coming off as insensitive or something, but I don't agree that the cartoons (1) shouldn't have been drawn and (2) are irresponsible. There are certainly proper limits imposed on freedom of speech, but those are restricted to situations where the speech itself creates a danger to others. The typical example here is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
These cartoon endanger no-one by their nature. Sure they are offensive. Sure it's to be expected that many people will be greatly upset by them, but they are NOT irresponsible. They are the expression of an opinion which exists in society and not a whole lot else. It's like publishing books that claim the Holocaust never occurred. I'm immensely bothered and offended by these books, but I will fight to the death for their right to be published. Any action other than support for such statements is assisting in the infringement of free speech.
When it comes to expressing your opinion in a free society, there is no such thing as a "wrong" or "irresponsible" statement (excepting what was noted above). Statements can be "rude," "provocative," "degrading," etc. but you simply can't catagorize a statement of speech as an absolute wrong without wrecking the whole concept of free speech. I'll say this again; freedom of speech exists to protect the speech that you don't like, not the stuff that you do like.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I'm sorry for perhaps coming off as insensitive or something, but I don't agree that the cartoons (1) shouldn't have been drawn and (2) are irresponsible. There are certainly proper limits imposed on freedom of speech, but those are restricted to situations where the speech itself creates a danger to others. The typical example here is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Then I hope you have been paying attention to what I have stated.
Quote:
These cartoon endanger no-one by their nature. Sure they are offensive. Sure it's to be expected that many people will be greatly upset by them, but they are NOT irresponsible. They are the expression of an opinion which exists in society and not a whole lot else. It's like publishing books that claim the Holocaust never occurred. I'm immensely bothered and offended by these books, but I will fight to the death for their right to be published. Any action other than support for such statements is assisting in the infringement of free speech.
Good you understand what I have been saying then.
Quote:
When it comes to expressing your opinion in a free society, there is no such thing as a "wrong" or "irresponsible" statement (excepting what was noted above). Statements can be "rude," "provocative," "degrading," etc. but you simply can't catagorize a statement of speech as an absolute wrong without wrecking the whole concept of free speech. I'll say this again; freedom of speech exists to protect the speech that you don't like, not the stuff that you do like.
Freedom of Speech exists to protect you from governmental prosecution of your speech. It does not remove your responsiblity for your speech and its effects from the general population.
That is why Freedom of Speech does not remove your responsiblity to exercise your freedom in a responsible manner. This is why I stated that the intent of the publishers is important. The initial printing was most likely not done in an irresponsible manner, but one to inform the people of a situation. That pictures of such a nature are often the function of a fearful society.
4 monthes down the road when it strikes the chords of discontent with the masses who disagree with it, republishing the pictures to futher inflame the situations smacks of irresponsiblity on part of the papers that published them. (Yea, I know that the papers republished the pictures because of the protests and the statements that pictures of the prophet can not be done. But on the surface it smacks of being irresponsible.)
Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no freedom.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Again Freedom requires responsiblity. No responsiblity no freedom.
Certainly, but again I think we need to question what "responsibility" really is. In the US legal system, there are many restrictions imposed upon free speech, but they all share a common factor: the speech causes harm to others in a tangible way. Typical examples are defamation, copyright infringement, and public disclosure of private facts. All of these are considered by society to be "irresponsible" exercises of free speech because they result in a direct harm to another person.
While I understand that what the cartoons are insulting, I simply do not see this tangible harm even if you assume that the papers published them with malicious intent. It seems to me that you are saying that the speech shouldn't have been expressed simply because it was likely to offend and/or insult. I just can't agree with that analysis as resulting in a determination of irresponsibility.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solypsist
These rioters need to calm down. Living in a free society means sometimes you're going to hear and see things you find offensive.
I nominate you to go and discuss these matters with the nice people in these mobs. I'm sure you'll be able to explain to them how their narrow-mindedness is wrong and they should change their ways and get out of the 7th century.:laugh4:
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.
Yillands Posten did not post the caricatures to provoke outrage. They meant to make a point, that after Van Gogh nobody dared as much to make a drawing of Mohammed.
Neither did any of the newspapers that followed to fuel the fire. They meant to show sympathy to Yillands Posten. It was somewhat naive and they should have seen it wouldn't do any good, but I don't see any malicious intent here.
Besides, they don't have free speech in the Arab world yet everyday there are newspaper cartoons there that demonize jews, Americans and western values in general. Yet if a newspaper decides to publish a few insensitive pictures about Mohammed, embassies are torched and foreigners are publicly beaten. There's a huge double standard at work here and if some fanatics (a lot of fanatics) can't take a little criticism to counter their own, that's their problem and not ours.
Call either unproffesional or irresponsible, it was legal what they did and nobody here would want it any other way. People that are offended can protest and demand an apology or even in extreme cases go to court, but that's it.
No European country is going to implement some government office that has to rubber stamp each publication before it may become public. And because we don't have or want such a thing, no government in Europe can take responsibility for the drawings and apologize for it, like some countries have demanded.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.
Exactly. The outrage is unreasonable, not the printing of the twelve cartoons.
None of the cartoons was 'unacceptable' as Bush and quite a few ordinary Americans seem to think. Mind you, one of the cartoons made fun of the Jyllands-Posten. And even the most critical drawing, the one of Mohammed with a live beum (thank you, Peter Sellers) in his little hat, was in no way 'unacceptable'.
I recall that years ago the late great Dutch Arabist Jan Brugman published an essay entitled 'Once the sword, forever the sword' in which he stated that violence, war and repression were the very core of Mohammed's message. It was a very well argued essay (Brugman knows his classics) and it certainly was (and still is) perfectly legitimate to state such a view in public. Brugman did not call for violence or other offensive behaviour against Muslims, he just pointed out to Muslims and everyone else who bothered to read his essay that their faith was unreasonable, violent and primitive.
In its own way, the Danish cartoon does the exact same thing. In the most uncharitable interpretation possible, said cartoon passes judgment on the entire religion of Islam. It does not call for violence or offensive behaviour against Muslims, it does not even address Muslims in a direct fashion. All it does is express someone's personal view on Mohammed. It is perfectly legitimate to express this view. In this context, words like 'unacceptable' and 'irresponsible' are totally out of place and reflect either weak knees or weak principles on the part of speaker.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
“Again the question you have to ask and have answered”; So before to express an opinion or to draw whatever, you have first to ask yourself if you want to be killed by Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheism, Pagans, Communist, Socialist, capitalists, etc, all groups which could be offended.
Well, that means because religions offended me deeply, can you start burning and destroyed all holly books and buildings. If the USA could remove from the Bank Notes the “In God We Trust”, I should appreciate. And if you don’t, well, I will kill you, or at least, I will try.:dizzy2:
The responsible of this violence are not the authors of the drawings, but the people who torch Embassies, use violence and make appeal to kill.
The newspaper used a pencil; they use guns, bombs and flames. So, yes, it is Religious Intolerance. The mob is an offence, the intolerance, the violence are, not few drawings published 4 months ago:wall:
“Just because a group often resorts to violence because of pictures drawn of a religious prophet, does not excuse the publisher from printing pictures that they know will incite violence.” The Pope was right. Galilee was wrong to offend the Christians. Earth is the centre of the Universe and the Sun is turning around it.
:help:
“If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.” I agree with that. The Muslim Countries (not all of them) and their populations have to make their revolution and gain their freedom.:duel:
“Freedom of Speech also requires personal responsiblity and accountability” : Right, in front of a court, not a mob, we agree on that.:2thumbsup:
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Certainly, but again I think we need to question what "responsibility" really is. In the US legal system, there are many restrictions imposed upon free speech, but they all share a common factor: the speech causes harm to others in a tangible way. Typical examples are defamation, copyright infringement, and public disclosure of private facts. All of these are considered by society to be "irresponsible" exercises of free speech because they result in a direct harm to another person.
Indeed
Quote:
While I understand that what the cartoons are insulting, I simply do not see this tangible harm even if you assume that the papers published them with malicious intent. It seems to me that you are saying that the speech shouldn't have been expressed simply because it was likely to offend and/or insult. I just can't agree with that analysis as resulting in a determination of irresponsibility.
You acknowledge the key word here - if the papers did it with malicious intent then they acted in an irresponsible matter.
Just because something might offend others is not an excuse to prevent the printing of material - there are many things I find offensive in print, but that is because I don't agree with the method of the delivery. However the intent of most of those items was not to offend but to inform.
If it was to inform - then the offense is an unfortunate side effect of informing people of the speech, something that those who wish to live in a society that practices Free Speech must accept.
If the intent was to offend with malicious forthought by the paper then they acted irresponsible. Its a subtle (Sp) difference but one that make Freedom of Speech important. To repeat myself - Freedom of Speech requires responsiblity, without responsibility no freedom.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
Redleg: the question is not wether or not the newspaper had the legal right to print those caricatures (they had), but wether or not publishing was so unreasonable that such an outrage could be expected.
Bingo you hit exactly what I have been saying.
Quote:
Yillands Posten did not post the caricatures to provoke outrage. They meant to make a point, that after Van Gogh nobody dared as much to make a drawing of Mohammed.
Neither did any of the newspapers that followed to fuel the fire. They meant to show sympathy to Yillands Posten. It was somewhat naive and they should have seen it wouldn't do any good, but I don't see any malicious intent here.
Besides, they don't have free speech in the Arab world yet everyday there are newspaper cartoons there that demonize jews, Americans and western values in general. Yet if a newspaper decides to publish a few insensitive pictures about Mohammed, embassies are torched and foreigners are publicly beaten. There's a huge double standard at work here and if some fanatics (a lot of fanatics) can't take a little criticism to counter their own, that's their problem and not ours.
Call either unproffesional or irresponsible, it was legal what they did and nobody here would want it any other way. People that are offended can protest and demand an apology or even in extreme cases go to court, but that's it.
No European country is going to implement some government office that has to rubber stamp each publication before it may become public. And because we don't have or want such a thing, no government in Europe can take responsibility for the drawings and apologize for it, like some countries have demanded.
Well maybe you don't get the point.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
Exactly. The outrage is unreasonable, not the printing of the twelve cartoons.
And the subsequent reprinting of the drawings after the outrage has been noted was not irresponsible?
Quote:
None of the cartoons was 'unacceptable' as Bush and quite a few ordinary Americans seem to think. Mind you, one of the cartoons made fun of the Jyllands-Posten. And even the most critical drawing, the one of Mohammed with a live beum (thank you, Peter Sellers) in his little hat, was in no way 'unacceptable'.
So are you attempting to tell others what they can believe or not believe?
Quote:
I recall that years ago the late great Dutch Arabist Jan Brugman published an essay entitled 'Once the sword, forever the sword' in which he stated that violence, war and repression were the very core of Mohammed's message. It was a very well argued essay (Brugman knows his classics) and it certainly was (and still is) perfectly legitimate to state such a view in public. Brugman did not call for violence or other offensive behaviour against Muslims, he just pointed out to Muslims and everyone else who bothered to read his essay that their faith was unreasonable, violent and primitive.
Again that follows the concept of Freedom of Speech - to voice your opinion, which I could find his article unreasonable if I so choice. Not that I do, just that if I decided to voice my opinion on his material - I would be correct in expressing my dis-satification with his statements.
Quote:
In its own way, the Danish cartoon does the exact same thing. In the most uncharitable interpretation possible, said cartoon passes judgment on the entire religion of Islam. It does not call for violence or offensive behaviour against Muslims, it does not even address Muslims in a direct fashion. All it does is express someone's personal view on Mohammed. It is perfectly legitimate to express this view. In this context, words like 'unacceptable' and 'irresponsible' are totally out of place and reflect either weak knees or weak principles on the part of speaker.
Actually you are incorrect. I can find something unacceptable and not be weaked kneed or weak principled. So a bomb wearing dipcition of Mohammed is an acceptable drawing? IN your opinion it might be. IN my opinion it is not, nor is an acceptable drawing of the man. Now draw someone like Osma Bin Laden wearing a turbin with a bomb then it is an accurate representation of the man.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So a bomb wearing dipcition of Mohammed is an acceptable drawing?
That is what I have upheld for 67 posts now. So for the 68th and last time: yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
IN my opinion it is not, nor is an acceptable drawing of the man.
Opine away, Redleg. It's called democracy.
-
Re: Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
That is what I have upheld for 67 posts now. So for the 68th and last time: yes.
Then under the same concept of Freedom of Speech that you are allowed to follow - you have to allow others to disagree with your position.
I have gotten the distinct impression - and I could be wrong - is that you do not want to accept that some people might have a disagreement with the way the message was done. To say something is unacceptable is voicing free speech. Just like making the drawings and publishing them.
With Freedom comes responsibility.
Quote:
Opine away, Redleg. It's called democracy.
Yes indeed - a concept I understand very well. Free Speech does not give one leave to state anyold thing they wish without facing the consequences of that speech. Criticism of the speech is one of those consequences.
It seems a strawman question is needed.
Why do you hate democracy?
