To the point that you yourself becomes the bigot that your wishing to offend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
How nice:oops:
Printable View
To the point that you yourself becomes the bigot that your wishing to offend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
How nice:oops:
nm.
how did this post end up here?
Yes, all things considered, they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Quote:
Originally Posted by that great article in Drone's link
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianII
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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 .
Agreed. And while we're at it, let's scrap the French Holocaust law too. It stifles debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.Quote:
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......
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
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.Quote:
Do you accept responsiblity for your Freedom? in this spefic instance Freedom of Speech.
But please when did anybody state that they couldn't have any dissenting views?Quote:
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.
Really not my issueQuote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Read what was written, not what you think was written.Quote:
Who said that it's necessary that any expression of language has to be good for society?
Actually you only have the right to voice your opinion, you have to accept the responsiblity that goes with that right.Quote:
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).
Not vague at all. With Freedom comes responsiblity. If your unwilling to be responsible for your Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.Quote:
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 at all - I am saying accept that your Freedom has an inherient responsiblity that comes with it.Quote:
It appears that you mean exercising any freedom in a considerated way, always concerned for the feelings of the other?
Consequences happen regards of your intent. Accepting responsiblity for your freedom is different then accepting the consequences of other people's actions.Quote:
That's your responsability or is it accepting the consequences of your actions (the term will not be used correctly in this last case),
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.Quote:
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?
“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.
I don't care what religion or not you claim to be. Your religious views are irrevelant to the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
You assume that it has to have some useful end.Quote:
Agreed - Freedom of Speech can be used for things beyond what is reasonable and good for society.
Responsability 1 (and actually I said that: "voice your opinion" in other words)Quote:
Actually you only have the right to voice your opinion, you have to accept the responsiblity that goes with that right.
It's vague because I don't know to what properties and objects apply your concept of responsability. Responsability 2.Quote:
Not vague at all. With Freedom comes responsiblity. If your unwilling to be responsible for your Freedom, then you do not deserve that freedom.
Responsability 3.Quote:
Not at all - I am saying accept that your Freedom has an inherient responsiblity that comes with it.
Responsability 4 and 5.Quote:
Consequences happen regards of your intent. Accepting responsiblity for your freedom is different then accepting the consequences of other people's actions.
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.Quote:
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.
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: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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Not at all - I perfer it to have some useful purpose. But that is not what the statment states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Your still missing the point.Quote:
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.
Speech is always open to moral and ethical evaluation by everyone that hears the speech. Responsibility goes along with Freedom and Rights.Quote:
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.
No I mean accept responsiblity.Quote:
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.
With Freedom comes responsiblity.Quote:
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".
Yellow Journalism is irresponsible.Quote:
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?
Your getting very close.Quote:
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?
You lost itQuote:
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.
Actually yellow journalism is allowed within the concept of Free Speech - I just find it an irresponsible method of reporting the facts.Quote:
In both cases the journalist fill the conditions.
Your almost there, however the concept is an ethical issue.Quote:
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.
Yes indeed responsiblity is inherent in Freedom.Quote:
In the third you mention the responsability as inherent.
[quote]
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.
Your getting close again.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.
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.Quote:
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)
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.Quote:
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).
Tsk tsk - I am pretty clear in what I mean.Quote:
Besides your ambigous and vague use of the term in three different sentence in just one post,
Publication in the press is to inform.Quote:
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".
Based upon a contest that was in response to the allegations and preception of a fearful society.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
“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.
Not at all - at issue is the fundmental principles of Freedom of Speech and the responsiblity that comes with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.)Quote:
“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.
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.
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?Quote:
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”.
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.
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.Quote:
“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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
I hereby appoint Brenus as my spokesman on this matter! :jumping:
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...022202010.html
“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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
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.Quote:
“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:
Criminal responsibility falls on intent.
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.Quote:
“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:
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.
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.Quote:
“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.
Of course we do, the difference is in the application of that idea.Quote:
“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:
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?Quote:
“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.
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.
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?Quote:
To offend the feeling of people ISN’T ILLEGAL. To call for murder is…
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.
Good. :2thumbsup:Quote:
“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:
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 convictionQuote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
CBR
“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....
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).
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
I had to look that word up. Unfortunately, google send me here. You Anglo's have words for the weirdest things. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
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'.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Shows how idiotic the law is, however if the law is present and not enforced it presents a dilemia when the law is violated.Quote:
“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....
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.Quote:
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).
I find yet another excuse to quote two funny guys:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fry&Laurie