Religious intolerance or freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The one with the prophet with a bomb in his headdress crosses the line, the rest I find tasteless, crude, rather racist, and idiotic. They show the typical fear of a racist society that instead of attempting to solve the problems of conflicting personal and cultural values - they resort to petty character assissnation. (I am sure these statements will upset some European posters - but what the hell you asked my opinion of the drawings.)

---

Oh dear...Well I'm not entering that one.

Quote:

---

I see a different aspect because of the nature of the contest, the follow-up publication of the cartoons because of the up roar they created by the Yellow Journalism of several Mid-East papers, and the irresponsible free speech of the Danish Imans.

---

Then I'll need your definition of responsability. As I know it responsability refers to the capacity of response, the ability to respond. The journalists are responding, they're posting the images again and again. What you can argue, in my opinion, is if this is the correct response or if this is the wrong response. I say that this is the correct response, they show their apreciation for freedom of speech, and that nothing will hold them in their "mission" if you want. Your possition appears to portray that the journalist should respond by taking the pictures away, stop their publication and then, perhaps, apolagize. This possition only shows that when a form of expression, no matter how childish, idiotic or careless it's, conflicts with others (expressions) or with belief, then there's no more freedom of speech. I mean if my last interpretation is wrong then I really am lost with your concept of responsability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Oh dear...Well I'm not entering that one.

---

It teach you to be careful what you ask for. Blunt honesty is normally where I go when someone wants my opinion.

Quote:

---

Then I'll need your definition of responsability. As I know it responsability refers to the capacity of response, the ability to respond.

---

ITs really easy to figure out. Take a look at any book that talks about responsiblity and being responsible for your actions.

Quote:

---

The journalists are responding, they're posting the images again and again.

---

Yes indeed they are responding - but are they thinking. Are they acting responsible.

Quote:

---

What you can argue, in my opinion, is if this is the correct response or if this is the wrong response.

---

Again its not about response but responsibility.

Quote:

---

I say that this is the correct response, they show their apreciation for freedom of speech, and that nothing will hold them in their "mission" if you want. Your possition appears to portray that the journalist should respond by taking the pictures away, stop their publication and then, perhaps, apolagize.

---

And you are incorrect about my position.

Quote:

---

This possition only shows that when a form of expression, no matter how childish, idiotic or careless it's, conflicts with others (expressions) or with belief, then there's no more freedom of speech. I mean if my last interpretation is wrong then I really am lost with your concept of responsability.

---

And again you are incorrect about my postion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Well, well, well, it's happening faster than I thought.



link

Dark days lay ahead. I especially liked this little titbit.



err...no you didn't, haven't, won't, you just muzzled it. As for respect, I was brought up to believe that it is something you earn.

The politicos are shitting themselves, bending over backward to appease the backward.

---

Well the article forgets to mention Säpo:s involvment in this. Basically Säpo (the security police) asked for the shutdown to protect the creators of the site (and presumly also Swedes in the middle east) and then informed the goverment what had been done.
The goverment agreed to the decition after being informed by both Säpo and UD (the foregin department).

The issue will probably go up in court to consider if this was legal or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Steady now lads, let's put our faith in our electoral system.

---

I wouldn't expect Dundee City Council to do much... They regularly kowtow to the will of the Islamic minority over the majority. My school's former Annex is to become an Islamic Cultural Centre subsidised by the taxpayer. The Dundee Central Mosque was subsidised by the Council if not paid for in its entirety by the Council. The Council prevents any follow-up of the regular complaints of Breach of the Peace and such about goings on at and around the cities 3 mosques, in day and night. The Council's Education Department now have us studying Islam more than Christianity in R.E.. And regardless of Council desires to have them integrate they rather gather themselveds into Cliques...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

I wouldn't expect Dundee City Council to do much... They regularly kowtow to the will of the Islamic minority over the majority.

---

That may be so, but the overall picture of Muslim demonstrations today is extremely reassuring. A few thousand in London, a few thousand in Paris, a few hundred in Amsterdam. Overall, I think European Muslims accept that they will have to live with freedom of speech, even if they don't like some of its consequences, and they certainly don't feel the urge to promote the agenda of Mssrs Mubarak, Assad and Ahmedinejad who are presently vying for leadership of the 'civilisational clash' we are witnessing (not).

Not all quiet Muslims are offended Muslims, by the way. I asked a Farsi exile in Amsterdam today whether he was going to demonstrate. His answer: 'The [insert veterinarian expletive] in Tehran killed my sister in 1984 and since that day they can stuff their [insert same] Prophet up their [insert series of famously juicy Iranian expressions].'

Heh... be well, my friend F. ~:)

Yes, the reactions of a vast majority of muslims here have been very calm and reassuring. No riots, mostly an acceptence of or quiet acquiesce to the liberties that a free press allows.

This is just in:

https://img154.imageshack.us/img154/...xart8589gd.jpg

:2thumbsup: :laugh4:

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/11/457510.html (Norwegian article)

Ridiculous... :no:

Anyway, this is an interesting article:

Quote:

---

From King Louis to Khomeini
Absolute rulers fear cartoonists more than the hydrogen bomb

February 11, 2006


Long before there was a row over Prophet Muhammad caricatures published by Jyllands-Posten Publication there was a cartoonist in Iran by the name of Manouchehr Karimzadeh who was handed down a ten-year sentence by the Islamic Revolutionary Court in 1992. His crime was depicting a character resembling the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The cartoon appeared in the science magazine Farad, showing a soccer player with his left leg either bent or missing, and his right hand blurred in the motion of the play, making it difficult to decipher whether one or both limbs were missing or amputated. The player’s hair resembled a turban and his face was similar to that of the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

The article that accompanied the cartoon was critical of the state of soccer in Iran. Farad Magazine was banned and all copies of the magazine were removed from newsstands.

It was apparent that the purpose of the cartoon was to criticize the Islamic Republic for the bad state of the sport in Iran. However the artist had left a lot of room for denial. He could argue that the burden of proof was upon the prosecutor to prove without any doubt that the face was of the Ayatollah Khomeini. But such arguments are only possible in free societies.

The Head of the Judiciary Ministry of Justice of Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi personally saw into it that the Islamic Revolutionary Court handled the case. Court cases are usually refereed to the Islamic Revolutionary Court when it appears that lower general courts might hand down a less severe sentence. Naser Arabha, Farad’s editor-in-chief was sentenced to six months in prison. Karimzadeh received fifty lashes, one year in prison, and a 500,000 Rials fine.

After Karimzadeh served his one-year sentence, the Islamic Supreme Court ruled that he had to be retried, and this time he was sentenced to ten years in prison. Karimzadeh was eventually released in 1994.

One hundred seventy five years before Karimzadeh there was a cartoonist in France by the name of Charles Philipon who was charged with defaming King Louis Philippe. Philipon had regressed King Louis image to a pear (La poire). At that time in France calling a person a pear was roughly equal to now-a-days calling a person a fruit, mushy, wuss, buffoon, or a crown.

A court case was brought up against Philipon in 1831 for defamation of King Louis. The case lasted several months. His cartoon was published repeatedly in European countries and created a lot of ridicule for King Louis. In court Philipon was successful in demonstrating that King Louis did indeed resembled a pear.

Philipon was eventually acquitted of all the charges, but the court also ruled that no more drawing of pears should appear in his magazine, La Caricature. By then there was so much ridicule of the King that it became accepted by the ruling classes in Europe that it is better to accept the ridicule than to challenge it.

American columnist and Pulitzer Prize winner Art Buchwad once wrote that dictators of the right and left fear the political cartoonists more than they do the atomic bomb. That’s definitely true in the case of Stalin and Hitler. In Stalin era Russia caricaturists had to produce propaganda caricatures for the benefit of the State or face demise and deportation to labor camps.

The rise of fascism in Europe changed their fate eventually when they were asked to produce anti fascism caricatures, and begin to gain popularity, but they were never allowed to poke fun of Stalin himself.

In Nazi Germany on the other hand many caricaturists were forced to produce anti Semitic caricatures or face persecution. On May 27, 1944, Hitler had a group of Polish caricaturists executed for anti Nazi drawings, and declared that the caricaturists were degenerate artists and supreme enemies of the State.

In today’s Iran it is an absolute blasphemy to portray the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei in a negative manner. When politics and religion are combined in cartoons, Ayatollahs fear it more than hydrogen bomb.

When cartoonists practice their craft many times they push the envelope too far, that’s their niche in life, they disturb the balance of humorous criticism and distastefulness. In democratic societies through, peaceful dialogues and free exchange of ideas the hateful and ill intentioned acts are rejected and sense of decency prevails.

In the eyes of the Islamic Republic of Iran only a handful of Ayatollahs are all-knowledgeable, all-knowing, and only one of them rules supreme. The rest of the people including catoonists are considered ignorant.

---

:laugh:

first time they see a nudie they see that :tomato:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali made a really gret speech about this, with which I largely agree. It's titled "The Right to Offend." And she's correct -- we must have the right to offend. Anything less is a capitulation to Political Correctness. Worse, it's handing the reins of our civilization to a pile of backward mullahs who have no business telling us how to live.

I think I'm understanding Redleg's argument, although that's hard to say through the haze of extreme stomach flu. He seems to be arguing that with rights go responsibilities. Can't argue with that and wouldn't want to. But if we have to engage in a major war to defend our way of life, I'm all for it. No capitulation. No appeasement. The mullahs of Iran are living in the modern world, whether they like it or not.

Freedom of speech is only needed to protect the things we dont want said.

Anyway heres an article that I think puts some real light on the topic.

Quote:

---

Pursuing mayhem
Feb 10, 2006
by Tony Snow ( bio | archive | contact )

Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Q: Why aren't angry Muslims in the United States torching buildings owned by Danes, Norwegians, French, Spanish and other Cartoon Infidels whose newspapers have printed cartoons, first published in Denmark, bearing the likeness of the Prophet Muhammad?

A: Because American Muslims have better things to do.

Here lies an important fact, too little mentioned or explored. The recent outburst of righteous arson in the Muslim world has been described as a warning to the West, a sign that radical Islam has become a force of considerable sweep and power, an indicator that terrorists have mastered propaganda techniques capable of sending raging hordes into the streets in a matter of minutes.


But another explanation fits the facts. The mayhem has centered in four nations: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan and Syria. Each has a double-digit unemployment rate, and poverty rates between 32 percent and 52 percent. All have large pools of idle men who can show up for a mob activity at a moment's notice. In short, they're havens for losers, uniquely equipped to stage such spectacles.

Even so, it took Danish Imam Abu Laban and a handful of other inciters five months to foment the riots. Laban began touring the Middle East last fall, bearing a dozen cartoons -- many of which were sloppy and amateurish -- first published in a Danish paper. They contained unflattering depictions of Muhammad.

Nobody cared.

So then Laban and company got creative. First, they grabbed a photograph taken at a French hog-calling contest, and claimed the fellow wearing a plastic snout and ears actually was posing as a porcine Prophet. They tossed in another bad drawing of a character saying, "I'm a pedophile," along with a photo-shopped tableau of a dog having its way with a Muslim bent in prayer.

Then they put together a list of fake charges against the dastardly Danes. They accused Danish papers of publishing 120 anti-Muslim cartoons and photos. They warned Danes were planning a movie that mocked Muhammad. They charged the Danish government with burning, desecrating and banning the Quran, prohibiting the construction of mosques and outlawing Islam.

It took a lot of effort -- aided and abetted by Syria, Iran and al Jazeera -- but the lie-mongering finally worked. Mobs in Lebanon and Syria set fire to Danish embassies. Riots broke out elsewhere, claiming more than a dozen lives. Iran organized an international boycott of Denmark and renamed Danish pastries, "Muhammad pastries."

The ringleader, Abu Laban, is affiliated with the Egyptian terror group the Islamic Brotherhood. He told Western reporters he never desired to see Denmark hurt, but then crowed in Arabic to al Jazeera that the boycott was working!

Yet, the central "crime" -- the mere depiction of Muhammad -- is neither a crime nor an anomaly. It has been commonplace in parts of the Muslim world for centuries. Indeed, a prominent Egyptian newspaper published the offending cartoons a week after their original appearance in Denmark. Nobody uttered of word of complaint at the time.

The episode reveals the weakness of hotheads who pursue mayhem in the name of Islam. Laban's quest to conjure fire took months to produce results and managed mainly to make the rioters look foolish or, in selected cases, dead.

An enterprising shopkeep in Gaza told Reuters that he saw an opportunity for commercial geld the instant the story broke. He bought Danish flags from a Taiwanese vendor and sold them at a premium. He knew locals would want pennants to burn. The man counted on his neighbors to behave like emotional fools.

Equally telling has been the weakness of those who always capitulate pre-emptively when hotheads kvetch. Jordan fired and arrested two newspaper editors for publishing a couple of the controversial cartoons. A Dubai university fired American-born Professor Claudia Keyboars for showing students what the fuss was about. Virtually every newspaper in the United States declined to publish the cartoons for fear of giving "offense."

Abu Laban is to Islam what David Duke is to Christianity: a bigoted joke. He appeals to the ignorant and dispossessed, and mistakes pointless rage for righteous passion.

And yet, his moment of "glory" teaches valuable lessons. Guys like him fail utterly in places where people have hope and prospects -- like the United States.

Furthermore, the most reliable vaccine against idiotic rage is faith -- the soulful conviction that the Creator is not the Destroyer; that religion directs us not toward the torch, but toward charity; and that God is not petty, vain, small-minded or humorless. He leaves that to the likes of Abu Laban.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think I'm understanding Redleg's argument, although that's hard to say through the haze of extreme stomach flu. He seems to be arguing that with rights go responsibilities. Can't argue with that and wouldn't want to.

---

You may have a beer and a cigar on me. After you get over the flu however.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

But if we have to engage in a major war to defend our way of life, I'm all for it. No capitulation. No appeasement. The mullahs of Iran are living in the modern world, whether they like it or not.

---

Yes indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

ITs really easy to figure out. Take a look at any book that talks about responsiblity and being responsible for your actions.

---

I fear it's not that simple. Your use is ambigous and vague.

Quote:

---

Yes indeed they are responding - but are they thinking. Are they acting responsible.

---

The thought is a metaphysic phenomenum usually hard to stablish as a fact. Besides it doesn't matter to the definition of responsability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by My dictionary

About that let's see:"Responsability"-1. Quality of responsable. -2. Obligation to repair the consecuences of a crime. -3. in Law: Capacity of the persons to foresee and accept the consequences of their actions.---Now I'll suppose that we agree on the meaning of different terms included in the definitions, and I'll move on to the key terms. "Responsable" (lat. "responsum") -1. adj. Forced to respond for something or somebody. -2. Conscient of ones obligations and dispossed to operate in consequence. -3. Head of a job or group, etc. -4. adj. & s. Guilty of some event or situation. "To respond" (lat. "respondere") -1. tr. To answer, satisfy what is asked. -2. To answer a call or a letter. -3. To correspond with their voices the animals to others of their same species. -4. To sing or recite in correspondense with what others sing or recite. -5. To retort an allegation. -6. intr. To repite an eco. -7. Show gratitude. -8. To have something the desired effect. -8. Correspond with ones actions to those realized by other. -9. To keep proportions one thing with another. -10. Be subject to a penalty or reparair correspondents to the caused damage.

---

I will only try to analize those of "responsabilty":
1- If by responsability you refer to a quality, then we also must refer to the quality in question. Now this definition could include all the four provided for "responsable". But I think that we can reduce them to only two aspects of the property "responsable": one objective- Am I forced to respond for something or to somebody or for somebody for any given reason? -and one subjective: Am I conscient that I'm the one who should respond for this something or this someone? If you only mean the objective part then we can accept it, though it has no relevance because it doesn't determine wich is the object of the response, what should be the content of it. If this content is legal, however, then there's no legal ground to establish any responsability, therefore we can dismiss that arguement. If you care for the subjective aspect, then the first obstacle will be that you don't know if the journalists in question knew of their actual responsabilities when operating, but let's suppose they did, again if it's based on legal obligations (refered to a penalty and attonment in moral ground is you like) then there's none, if this is meant to be only a response to anothers action then there was one and they were conscient, we suppose that. Notice that if you don't take into account the conciousness as something given, then your arguement is also unsubstantiated. The problem in general with this sense of the term is that you've no object that determines the response, generally such the content of such object (such pack) is determined by law, if you can find another credible ground then be my guest.
2- This can be dismissed a priori, exercise of freedom of speech is no crime, so it can be a crime at the same time.
3- This concept is a technical one, it refers to the capacity of foreseeing in a given situation and not exactly the acceptance of the consecuences, it's more related with being able to guide ones action in base to that foreseeing or any comprehension of the situation and the part taken in that situation, the guilt related to it. I suppose that this is not the one you're using, I believe you're with the first one right. I'll try to respond to this anyway. In this sense any person wich has no alterated physical or mental properties is in complete state of responsability (and also other legal determinations if you want) wich is effectivelly the case of the journalists in question until prooved otherwise. So yes they were responsable in this sense, because they could forsee the consequences of their actions and comprehend a situatuation of fact, and they acted in consequence.

Like you see the fact that they "thought" or didn't "thought" is irrelevant to the definition of "responsable". Beyond that I think that it's a little extreme to derivate the scale of value of freedom of speech considerating internal will. The actions are the only thing that matter, for they are proovable, and in this case the actual actions, the drawings, are only that, emptied from intention they cannot be either "bad" or "good", and the intention that everyone gives them might differ, as it did. They accepted criticism, so I suppose that you refer to other forms of "response", in wich case is not reasonable to ask. In case I'm still confused then point what is this responsability you're talking about.

I was looking up something completely different (the apocrypha of the bible) when I cam across this.

Very elightening... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1/index.htm

Loads of ready linked references for the "heretics" out there. Same for the Bible. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Very enlightening... http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/1/index.htm

Loads of ready linked references for the "heretics" out there. Same for the Bible. :thumbsup:

---

Good stuff. Makes you wonder why some of our members of the prophetic persuasion reason with us at all. It's no use, is it? One look at those phat suras should convince them:

2:6 As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not.
2:7 Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.
2:10 In their hearts is a disease, and Allah increaseth their disease. A painful doom is theirs because they lie.

Oh, t3h awful doom. I feel it already. :coffeenews:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I fear it's not that simple. Your use is ambigous and vague.

---

Not at all - it must be the language barrier my friend.

Quote:

---

The thought is a metaphysic phenomenum usually hard to stablish as a fact. Besides it doesn't matter to the definition of responsability.

---

Again you are not attempting to utilize the term correctly.

Quote:

---

I will only try to analize those of "responsabilty":
1- If by responsability you refer to a quality, then we also must refer to the quality in question. Now this definition could include all the four provided for "responsable". But I think that we can reduce them to only two aspects of the property "responsable": one objective- Am I forced to respond for something or to somebody or for somebody for any given reason? -and one subjective: Am I conscient that I'm the one who should respond for this something or this someone?

---

Nope respond does not fall in line with the concept of personal responsiblity.

Quote:

---

If you only mean the objective part then we can accept it, though it has no relevance because it doesn't determine wich is the object of the response, what should be the content of it. If this content is legal, however, then there's no legal ground to establish any responsability, therefore we can dismiss that arguement.

---

Its not a legal arguement.

Quote:

---

If you care for the subjective aspect, then the first obstacle will be that you don't know if the journalists in question knew of their actual responsabilities when operating, but let's suppose they did, again if it's based on legal obligations (refered to a penalty and attonment in moral ground is you like) then there's none, if this is meant to be only a response to anothers action then there was one and they were conscient, we suppose that. Notice that if you don't take into account the conciousness as something given, then your arguement is also unsubstantiated. The problem in general with this sense of the term is that you've no object that determines the response, generally such the content of such object (such pack) is determined by law, if you can find another credible ground then be my guest.
2- This can be dismissed a priori, exercise of freedom of speech is no crime, so it can be a crime at the same time.
3- This concept is a technical one, it refers to the capacity of foreseeing in a given situation and not exactly the acceptance of the consecuences, it's more related with being able to guide ones action in base to that foreseeing or any comprehension of the situation and the part taken in that situation, the guilt related to it. I suppose that this is not the one you're using, I believe you're with the first one right. I'll try to respond to this anyway. In this sense any person wich has no alterated physical or mental properties is in complete state of responsability (and also other legal determinations if you want) wich is effectivelly the case of the journalists in question until prooved otherwise. So yes they were responsable in this sense, because they could forsee the consequences of their actions and comprehend a situatuation of fact, and they acted in consequence.

---

Jumbled thoughts here - but again I am not talking about legal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Like you see the fact that they "thought" or didn't "thought" is irrelevant to the definition of "responsable". Beyond that I think that it's a little extreme to derivate the scale of value of freedom of speech considerating internal will. The actions are the only thing that matter, for they are proovable, and in this case the actual actions, the drawings, are only that, emptied from intention they cannot be either "bad" or "good", and the intention that everyone gives them might differ, as it did. They accepted criticism, so I suppose that you refer to other forms of "response", in wich case is not reasonable to ask. In case I'm still confused then point what is this responsability you're talking about.

---

Then maybe you should research the concept of responsibility and freedoms some more. Some reading of interest about the concept of responsiblity and rights.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/newslt...v/9711mart.htm

http://www.unicef.org.uk/tz/resource...ook_rights.pdf

[QUOTE=Redleg]It has a lot to do with the response. If it's the capacity to respond or the obligation, then the response is esencial to the concept.

Quote:

---

http://www.worldinvisible.com/newslt...v/9711mart.htm

---

First link, first text:Rights and Responsibilities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martin Poehler

Recently the British Government announced it was scrapping it's old National Health Service Patients' Charter and drafting a new one. A new charter was deemed necessary because patients who thought they understood their rights under the current charter were abusing and assaulting hospital staff when the patients felt their rights weren't being met. The emphasis in the new charter will be that patients have responsibilities as well as rights. It will seek to point out that damage is done to others when patients act inconsiderately. Among other things, the new charter will emphasize the need for patients to be on time for appointments, and for patients to allow emergency patients to go before them, even if this makes it impossible for the hospital to keep its commitment to see every patient within 15 minutes.

---

Notice how it establishes a set of responsabilities, situations in wich certain people have to respond in certain way. You haven't established that yet, at least not clearly, unless you consider that taking the pictures away and banning them is the response you're looking for, or simple apology perhaps. Also notice that this talks of rights, in general, the concept of rights implies the contrary form, the obligation or responsability.

First link, second text:The Importance of Our Responsibilites

Quote:

---

One of the points the new Patients' Charter highlights is that life in society today goes on in an orderly way when there is a right relationship between rights and responsibilities. For the National Health Service to work well patients' rights need to be respected and met. But patients also need to be responsible, by being willing to let other patients with life-threatening injuries go before them in the waiting room queue. The good that often comes when responsibilities supersede rights can be seen throughout society.

For example, a father may feel he has a right to a good night's sleep. But he voluntarily gives up this right when he has a sick child who needs his caring attention. In many ways such as this one, performing our responsibilities and voluntarily deferring our rights brings stability, graciousness, and dignity to society. Meeting our responsibilities in this way is really just expressing love to others.

---

Again notice how in the bolded part a kind of response is setted up, so the subject X knows what should be the object of responsability. It even gives an example of responsable action in the second paragraph.

The third one is a little cheese and adds nothing relevant. The fourth is practically the same.

Quote:

---

http://www.unicef.org.uk/tz/resource...ook_rights.pdf

---

This seemed like a joke. But all right, I get your point. Nothing new there Red, with every right a responsability. Move on.

You only gave me this response:

Quote:

---

However none of those things are prosecutable in a court of law unless one can prove malicous intent to provoke and incite violence. Those that do that should have the full measure of the law thrown at them and their right to free speech removed.

---

So what happens with the others? What should be the response? Are you saying that it's not the reasonable and just and moral thing to do, to stand for freedom of speech when it's attacked? Are you saying that this journalists have other responsabilities above the respect to the very foundings of their work wich is freedom of speech? I just want to satisfy my curiosity, so I can answer accordingly, there's no sarcasm there, neither "strawman", I just need simple answer to everyone of those questions if you've the time (and please don't redirect me to cheesy links).

Quote:

---

It teach you to be careful what you ask for. Blunt honesty is normally where I go when someone wants my opinion.

---

Wait wait, you're offended by the cartoons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Wait wait, you're offended by the cartoons?

---

The one with the prophet with a bomb in his headdress crosses the line, the rest I find tasteless, crude, rather racist, and idiotic. They show the typical fear of a racist society that instead of attempting to solve the problems of conflicting personal and cultural values - they resort to petty character assissnation. (I am sure these statements will upset some European posters - but what the hell you asked my opinion of the drawings.)

Take it how you will. But where does it say I am offended?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

t has a lot to do with the response. If it's the capacity to respond or the obligation, then the response is esencial to the concept.
First link, first text:Rights and Responsibilities
Notice how it establishes a set of responsabilities, situations in wich certain people have to respond in certain way. You haven't established that yet, at least not clearly, unless you consider that taking the pictures away and banning them is the response you're looking for, or simple apology perhaps. Also notice that this talks of rights, in general, the concept of rights implies the contrary form, the obligation or responsability.

---

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.

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.

Your bolded the part about response but not responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

The Importance of Our Responsibilites

One of the points the new Patients' Charter highlights is that life in society today goes on in an orderly way when there is a right relationship between rights and responsibilities. For the National Health Service to work well patients' rights need to be respected and met. But patients also need to be responsible, by being willing to let other patients with life-threatening injuries go before them in the waiting room queue. The good that often comes when responsibilities supersede rights can be seen throughout society.

For example, a father may feel he has a right to a good night's sleep. But he voluntarily gives up this right when he has a sick child who needs his caring attention. In many ways such as this one, performing our responsibilities and voluntarily deferring our rights brings stability, graciousness, and dignity to society. Meeting our responsibilities in this way is really just expressing love to others.

---

Quote:

---

First link, second text:The Importance of Our Responsibilites
Again notice how in the bolded part a kind of response is setted up, so the subject X knows what should be the object of responsability. It even gives an example of responsable action in the second paragraph.

The third one is a little cheese and adds nothing relevant. The fourth is practically the same.
This seemed like a joke. But all right, I get your point. Nothing new there Red, with every right a responsability. Move on.

---

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.

Quote:

---

You only gave me this response: So what happens with the others? What should be the response? Are you saying that it's not the reasonable and just and moral thing to do, to stand for freedom of speech when it's attacked?

---

Not at all. Notice what I have stated - not what you think I am stating.

Quote:

---

Are you saying that this journalists have other responsabilities above the respect to the very foundings of their work wich is freedom of speech?

---

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.

Quote:

---

I just want to satisfy my curiosity, so I can answer accordingly, there's no sarcasm there, neither "strawman", I just need simple answer to everyone of those questions if you've the time (and please don't redirect me to cheesy links).

---

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.

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:

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/Jylland...ns_controversy

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

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

Quote:

---

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!

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..

I have three letters for these peoplehttps://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8285/wtf1bm.th.png

Picture is here:

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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)

Quote:

---

they should be demonstrating against Osama bin Laden instead

---

No. 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!'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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:

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé'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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé'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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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..

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......

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Slightly OT, but last week, 220.000 people attended to Haifa Wehbé'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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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.

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......

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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/stor...ategory=people

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

Good

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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:

“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:

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...021702499.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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:

nm.

how did this post end up here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by that great article in Drone's link

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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.

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.

---

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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.

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 .

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 .

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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).

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

But please when did anybody state that they couldn't have any dissenting views?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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

Quote:

---

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.

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).

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

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),

---

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

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?

---

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.

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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)

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.

---

It's vague because I don't know to what properties and objects apply your concept of responsability. Responsability 2.

Quote:

---

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

---

Responsability 3.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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.

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.

---

Your still missing the point.

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.

---

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

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.

---

No I mean accept 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".

---

With Freedom comes responsiblity.

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?

---

Yellow Journalism is irresponsible.

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?

---

Your getting very close.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

In the third you mention the responsability as inherent.

---

Yes indeed responsiblity is inherent in Freedom.

[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.

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.

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)

---

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:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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".

---

Publication in the press is to inform.

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.

---

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

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.

---

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.

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

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.

---

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.

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”.

---

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.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

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