So you don't seem that bothered by Iraq getting invaded, you just say they might have hidden some weapons, so America had the right to invade. Everyone know that America has probably got the biggest stockpile of hidden WMDs in the world, lets all go and bomb America.
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.
You mean the americans who murdered the men, women, and children of hiroshima and nagasaki ; and used napalm and white phosphorous on the people of vietnam and iraq - to state a few, and also supplied chemical weapons to the israelis who used them on palestinians?
Absolutely not, free speech is legal, hate speech is not.
Ask Anjem Choudary when he gets out in 5 years, he found out the hard way.
Anjem Choudary was promoting ISIS and claiming one day Islam will dominate the world, whether we agree or not.
They showed banners saying "Death to America" and all that sort of nonsense.
I'm not even sure what that means. Hate speech clearly promotes violence and that is probably the main difference.
The Charlie Hebdo is a special case. No one said a word, it was just a cartoon. I would agree with you anyway that those cartoons promoted violence and should have never been allowed. Obviously they took advantage of freedom of speech to promote violence.
Their intention was to prove that Islam is a violent religion by provoking Muslims.
The wrong thing to do under any circumstances.
So you also think freedom of speech should have limits. Other people have different ideas on what those limits should be. Some would say that what you say here shows that *you* don't understand what freedom of speech is. This is a debate that has been ongoing since the very first press freedom laws were enacted hundreds of years ago.
You speak as if there was a consensus on the topic when there is not, and then using the disagreement of many Muslims with that alleged consensus to malign us as a group and delegitimize our opinions. A propaganda technique we're all too familiar with.
If you want to actually have rational and meaningful discussions here, I suggest you take a long and hard look in the mirror and wonder whether there might be something wrong with you that cause every thread you start to go pretty much the same way. Then maybe eat a healthy portion of humble pie. But something tells me you'd rather use your whole experience here as validation of your preconceived ideas of what's wrong with Muslims.
One little difference, Irak used those weapons to kill hundreds of innocent Kurds while America (if they indeed have those kinds of weapons) never used them against anybody.
I wish Muslims knew what Freedom of Speech really is
but I know there's no hope.
Freedom of speech isn't a thing, governments have always prevented certain topics from being discussed. Just because we differ with you on how far suppression of speech should go doesn't mean you guys are suddenly the epitome of free speech.
Free speech itself is a dangerous idea, do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
Freedom of speech isn't a thing, governments have always prevented certain topics from being discussed.
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed. The first amendment of the American constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Free speech itself is a dangerous idea, do you REALLY want anyone to be able to say anything? I hope not.
Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion. This worked for well America.
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed.
Again, no, they don't. You can be arrested for saying certain things just about anywhere, even America.
format_quote Originally Posted by fschmidt
Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion.
Read that last part again, and think about it.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by Raymann
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
So what's the problem? Nobody disagrees with you about that, we just find it funny how you claim your society has freedom of speech, when it clearly doesn't (and for a good reason).
Not true. America had free speech and any topic could be discussed. The first amendment of the American constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Yes I REALLY want anyone to be able to express any opinion. This worked for well America.
America had it on paper - but in practice it became a case of gag-orders and secret assassinations, and what happened to kennedy and pat tillman are testimony to this.
It is a fact that when people turn to the truth and give up unjust selfish greed in God's sight - they have a unique mental standard, this can be seen in the many public arguments which took place in al madinah during and after the time of the Prophet and on some of the military expeditions where differences arose - their arguments for Allah 's sake were so vocal that one wondered how easy it would have been for the leader to silence it with the sword, and sometimes huge differences were simply put aside so as to unite upon one word for the sake of Allah - and this is only possible (with sanity kept in tact) when people are striving for truth and justice for everyone seeking Allah's face (and not some racist, "nationalist", or economic kickback, and where falsehood is shunned and despised to the extent that it is degrading. The way Abdullah ibn Ubayy lost authority by blatantly lying in front of his followers despite his previous ability to slander at will is a stark example of how things ran.
The world we live in now - where godless leaders brazenly tell any great/tremendous lie simply in anticipation of "authority" , or when in authority -simply for the sake of argument despite the fact that their statement is blatantly and patently false - all without fearing any loss of honour or authority - would have been unthinkable in times where - forget about lying - simply making a u-turn on a decision would have caused huge questions to be raised as to credibility and fitness to lead.
So people really need to look at being on a stable foundation of just universal truth before wondering what they should and shouldn't be censoring and amending - otherwise their efforts are not only in vain -but often detrimental to future generations.
Here is an example of detrimental censorship with financial covetousness and racist vehicles in mind:
The fact is that corrupt people and despicable liars dislike just and truthful speech - and their tendency to resort to false accusations of "anti-semitism" and "extremism" (as if the people who care to research don't know how extremely racist and deceitfully manipulative those behind the fake state of israel are - to the extent that they are leeching the global economy dry through usury to the extent that destitution, riots, and martial law are already manifesting) when genuine and important questions are raised even though the very same people utter unjust and untruthful blasphemies bears testimony to this fact.
To claim that Muslims are unaware of the importance of just and sharp free speech is a diversion from the truth with possible smoky mirrors of deception at play - since every prophet was made to struggle against unjust censorship and some paid with their lives, and we read about these stories nearly every day.
Of course not, I said if before, there is something called "Hate Speech" which basically draws the line between what is allowed and what is not. People go to jail for saying the wrong thing. People get sued all the time for the same reason so obviously we're not allowed to say whatever we want.
There is a limit and every country has different laws on the subject.
On this point I agree with you - there seems to be no consensus on what freedom of speech is and its entirely based on Historical and social factors. So whats the point of this thread?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
America had it on paper - but in practice it became a case of gag-orders and secret assassinations, and what happened to kennedy and pat tillman are testimony to this.
Nothing (human) is perfect, but America generally had free speech until recently.
So people really need to look at being on a stable foundation of just universal truth before wondering what they should and shouldn't be censoring and amending - otherwise their efforts are not only in vain -but often detrimental to future generations.
Truth and free speech should be pursued at the same time because they support each other. Without free speech, the powerful twist the truth until truth dies. Without truth, free speech only produces noise. So both are needed. As John Adams, one of America's founders, wrote in 1798:
"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Nothing (human) is perfect, but America generally had free speech until recently.
Truth and free speech should be pursued at the same time because they support each other. Without free speech, the powerful twist the truth until truth dies. Without truth, free speech only produces noise. So both are needed. As John Adams, one of America's founders, wrote in 1798:
"While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world. Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
To understand the meaning of the word "free" one must be able to understand what free means, otherwise the telephone bill would never have existed. There was a strong emphasis on free speech when people in america were beginning to feel the pinch (and sometimes lash) of the king of england whose policies and circumstances were often being directed and engineered by the same usurious money changers who were seeking a monopoly on the american market without the need have to pay tax to the british government.
One must bear in mind that whilst this was all happening, the surviving natives whose families and tribes had been massacred and had been driven south were not even free to walk anywhere near the lands which had been forcefully taken from them, nor did the "n!ggers" , it was basically a racist nationalist thing and the idea of free speech (as in israel now) was a case of free speech to a limited extent for the current occupiers of the land. This type of free speech is ponzi scheme free speech.
We see something similar in the right to keep and bear arms, they people who fought king george knew the importance of such rights, though it wasn't the case for the "n!ggers" who might rise up.
And now - again - as with any ponzi scheme - when the people at the bottom become the suffering majority and they seek to demand the same rights which they were allowed as long as it suited the beneficiaries of the economy, the questioning by the ruling class on the peoples' right to free speech and to bear arms is again ressurected.
This type of boom and bust cycle continues until people come onto a uniform mentality based on universal truth and justice, and the racist and greedy policies of the rothschild clan cannot provide such universal truth and justice through economic slavery and banker communism - rather - only God can, and a choice will be made soon since we're reaching a climax.
Provoking Muslims and causing turmoil will not distract keen observers from the actual reasons for their imminent situation - just as setting up a fake Godless israel to falsely justify a global war for absolute usurer domination will not trick "him who hath understanding and is able to count".
Here is a compilation of some of the statements which prominent people have made over the centuries - if objectively considered, you will notice that the main cause of discontent and protest by the speakers stems from the effects which come from the practise of usury - especially by a racist group which sees other humans as beasts of burden to be exploited at will.
To understand the meaning of the word "free" one must be able to understand what free means, otherwise the telephone bill would never have existed. There was a strong emphasis on free speech when people in america were beginning to feel the pinch (and sometimes lash) of the king of england whose policies and circumstances were often being directed and engineered by the same usurious money changers who were seeking a monopoly on the american market without the need have to pay tax to the british government.
One must bear in mind that whilst this was all happening, the surviving natives whose families and tribes had been massacred and had been driven south were not even free to walk anywhere near the lands which had been forcefully taken from them, nor did the "n!ggers" , it was basically a racist nationalist thing and the idea of free speech (as in israel now) was a case of free speech to a limited extent for the current occupiers of the land. This type of free speech is ponzi scheme free speech.
We see something similar in the right to keep and bear arms, they people who fought king george knew the importance of such rights, though it wasn't the case for the "n!ggers" who might rise up.
And now - again - as with any ponzi scheme - when the people at the bottom become the suffering majority and they seek to demand the same rights which they were allowed as long as it suited the beneficiaries of the economy, the questioning by the ruling class on the peoples' right to free speech and to bear arms is again ressurected.
This type of boom and bust cycle continues until people come onto a uniform mentality based on universal truth and justice, and the racist and greedy policies of the rothschild clan cannot provide such universal truth and justice through economic slavery and banker communism - rather - only God can, and a choice will be made soon since we're reaching a climax.
Provoking Muslims and causing turmoil will not distract keen observers from the actual reasons for their imminent situation - just as setting up a fake Godless israel to falsely justify a global war for absolute usurer domination will not trick "him who hath understanding and is able to count".
Here is a compilation of some of the statements which prominent people have made over the centuries - if objectively considered, you will notice that the main cause of discontent and protest by the speakers stems from the effects which come from the practise of usury - especially by a racist group which sees other humans as beasts of burden to be exploited at will.
I don't see anything here that is relevant to this thread. Each institution governs a certain set of people. The moderators of this forum govern this forum and can choose between censorship and free speech for members of this forum, but not for anyone else. Similarly the government of America gave free speech to the citizens of America and not to anyone else. Who should qualify as a citizen of America is a separate question.
The rest of what you wrote should probably be broken up into a number of threads since it covers many topics. I would be glad to discuss any of this with you in another thread, but I don't want to derail this thread. And by the way, I am racially jewish.
I don't see anything here that is relevant to this thread. Each institution governs a certain set of people. The moderators of this forum govern this forum and can choose between censorship and free speech for members of this forum, but not for anyone else. Similarly the government of America gave free speech to the citizens of America and not to anyone else. Who should qualify as a citizen of America is a separate question.
The rest of what you wrote should probably be broken up into a number of threads since it covers many topics. I would be glad to discuss any of this with you in another thread, but I don't want to derail this thread. And by the way, I am racially jewish.
The entire post is related to the concept of free speech - and - after you mentioned america as an example, i demonstrated to you that the idea of free speech in america is based on a false construct and not really a universal concept.
The fact that economy guides american principles makes it all related - since the userers hold a sway over a huge majority of mainstream news and entertainment media
What's actually happened is that your idea of free speech was challenged by the comments of the prominent people who were exercising their free speech to state the reason they believed they were being run down - i'm sure many of the people mentioned prefer that the perception of the root of the problem is diverted to incessant and baseless vilication of Islam, Muslims, and "immigrants", whilst some Muslims amongst many other people from all walks of life are forced to immigrate by the policies of the same usurers, but the facts are obvious for those who care to think.
Know that setting up false flag events and then falsely blaming Muslims and setting up groups to accuse Muslims of every crime the usurers and their puppets commit is going to backfire in a solid way once people get clued on. What we're seeing is a bit like what was portrayed in george orwell's animal farm. It is better to repent to God and walk straight than to assum that making up cliches such as "all animals are equal - but some are more equal than others" will bring any success.
The entire post is related to the concept of free speech - and - after you mentioned america as an example, i demonstrated to you that the idea of free speech in america is based on a false construct and not really a universal concept.
I don't understand what you mean. At a legal level, you can still express any opinion in America (as a citizen) without worrying about being arrested. The only other country where I know this to be true is Japan. In all other countries to my knowledge, you can be arrested for expressing the wrong opinion. This is a simple concept.
The fact that economy guides american principles makes it all related - since the userers hold a sway over a huge majority of mainstream news and entertainment media
The battle between the financial elite and righteous religions has been going on throughout history. The battle between the Quraysh and early Muslims was the same battle. The financial elite win when religion is weak. The only connection between this and free speech is that free speech tends to increase when good religions dominate, and decrease when the financial elite dominate.
- - - Updated - - -
format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000
Israeli idea of free speech:
Like most of the West, Israel supports blasphemy and opposes free speech.
When one considers all the false accusations against Muslims and stupid conspiracy theories about "19 Muslim hijackers with boxcutters levelling three solid steel eaethquake and hurricane resistant framed buildings into the footprint at the speed of gravity" we can clearly see the falsehood of corrupt politicians who take miserly campaign contributions from corrupt jewish lobbies and then sell out the people they claim to democratically represent and at the same time whatch the prospects of their own future generations get ruined as the usurers take control with the people's money.
A London councillor is to be investigated by the Labour Party over a post he shared on Facebook which claimed Jews were warned about the 9/11 attacks.
Lambeth Council member Irfan Mohammad said he "reposted a video without recognising that it contained anti-Semitic content" in 2015.
He has apologised "unreservedly".
Lambeth Labour chief whip Jane Edbrooke said the allegation of anti-Semitism would be taken "extremely seriously".
The post shared on the social networking site stated: "Jews working in the World Trade Centre received a text message before the incident 'Do not come to work [on] September 11'".
It was brought to light by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which described the post as "utterly appalling".
'No place for anti-Semitism'
In a letter posted on Twitter, Mr Mohammed, who is also a member of the Lambeth Inferfaith Forum, asked Ms Edbrooke to begin disciplinary action.
The letter read: "I reposted a video without recognising that it contained anti-Semitic content.
"This was a stupid thing and thoughtless thing to do and I recognise that it was an anti-Semitic act.
"It is totally unacceptable and it was my mistake which I do not shy away from.
"I apologise unreservedly, I completely accept that I have hurt the Jewish community through my action."
Ms Edbrooke said: "We take any allegation of anti-Semitism extremely seriously and condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms. There is no place in our party for anti-Semitism.
"Councillor Irfan Mohammed has apologised and there will be an investigation."
Mr Mohammed, who was not a councillor when he shared the post, was elected in 2018.
He said he would be writing to synagogues in Lambeth to personally apologise, and was "keen to listen and learn from them."
One really wonders what on earth is going on when a person comes up on british media after the queen asks bankers if there was laxness in the running of the economy (which they briefly answer on the fly four years later with no paperwork - and whilst emphasising the fact that it was an answer to a four year old question) and then accuses her of raising "sensitive issues" whilst mocking her as a person who identifies with people who became poor. It's not difficult to realise that there's a lot more financial blackmail and bullying going on behind the scenes than we are shown.
The rothschild method of spreading their bets over multiple countries ensure that it's difficult to touch them - but their dodgy mulk al jabree kingdom of heaven of luke 19:23 is falling apart at the seams.
Their abuse and overuse of the "anti-semitism" label is also undoing itself as enough people feel the sting of it and furiously spread the word.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Eric H liked this post
and on some of the military expeditions where differences arose - their arguments for Allah
's sake were so vocal that one wondered how easy it would have been for the leader to silence it with the sword, and sometimes huge differences were simply put aside so as to unite upon one word for the sake of Allah
Re: Freedom of Speech
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks