libel/slander vs free speech

[HAWA*~]

I would like to know from the perspective of muslims who live in the non muslim world and non muslims what arguments you have on why or why not the cartoons of late are consider libel/slander or why not? and whether there are limits to free speech, afterall why cant say what we want on forums without being banned why can we say/do what we want in real life?

 

[Trumble]

The concept of defamation is principally a legal one that goes rather beyond just "telling lies". To be slanderous or libelous a statement/cartoon/whatever must be shown to cause damage to the person(s) concerned of either a financial or psychological nature. That is clearly not the case in the instance of the cartoons which, clearly, are incapable of causing the Prophet (for no other reason than that he is long dead) any damage whatsoever. What the cartoons undoubtably have done is cause considerable offence to many people but, personally, I tend to agree with John Stuart Mill that "mere offence" is insufficient reason to suppress freedom of expression. Somebody or other is likely to be offended by just about anything.

 

[HAWA*~]

The concept of defamation is principally a legal one that goes rather beyond just "telling lies". To be slanderous or libelous a statement/cartoon/whatever must be shown to cause damage to the person(s) concerned of either a financial or psychological nature. That is clearly not the case in the instance of the cartoons which, clearly, are incapable of causing the Prophet (for no other reason than that he is long dead) any damage whatsoever. What the cartoons undoubtably have done is cause considerable offence to many people but, personally, I tend to agree with John Stuart Mill that "mere offence" is insufficient reason to suppress freedom of expression. Somebody or other is likely to be offended by just about anything.

Thanks for the reply. Do you believe that that there is a limit to freedom of speech?

 

[DataPacRat]

Thanks for the reply. Do you believe that that there is a limit to freedom of speech?

That depends on what the goals of the legal system are in the first place.

From what I've been able to figure out, for a legal system which is based around generally humanist principles, that is, promoting the welfare of humans, such as by making murder illegal; and is secular, not giving preference to members of any religion over any other; there are only two or three limits that should be placed on freedom of speech. One is speech that is directly connected with causing harm: uttering threats, or the classic of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The other is speech that is fraudulent - that is, that it is false, and the speaker /knows/ it is false, and is doing so to cause harm to somebody, such as by lying to them about the odds of a fixed card-game, or more relevantly here, defamation. (A possible third category involves breaking a contract that involves not saying something, which, if one considers a constitution to be a 'social contract', is where copyright squeaks in.)

The main difficulty with making depictions of Muhammad illegal is the principle of secularism. In short, a secular government tries not to give any one religion any benefit that is not also given to all other religions. For example, if one religion is allowed to put up a winter holiday display on government property, then to be fair to other religions, they must also be permitted to put up their own winter holiday displays. The difficulty with blasphemy laws is that either no religion can be permitted to place limits on everybody's speech, or every religion can be permitted to place such limitations. Because of the different things that different religions consider blasphemous, limiting speech to only that speech which no religion considers offensive would limit speech to nearly nothing, and it is simply impractical to place such a limit; leaving a secular government with only a single option: not making any sort of blasphemy illegal at all.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[Hugo]

Trumble I think has the right, if there is a right answer, in that one cannot cause harm to someone who is dead. Also in a secular society religious things are not regarded as having a basis in fact, that is what you might believe does not become a fact because it cannot be independently verified. So the question of was Mohammed a prophet, was Jesus the Son of God are not admissible as factual evidence because they amount to matters of opinion. I suppose the point in law is that if we admit such things as fact then someone who says they were abducted by aliens must also be believed as if it were a verifiable fact.

My own attitude is that any one can 'dig up' any subject and treat it with respect or contempt - my job after that is to deal with it. So if there is a depiction of the prophet then I suggest we treat it like a question and answer it. Similarly Philip Pullman has written a book called "Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, its a work of fiction but to a Christian it sounds offensive but I have the book and I can deal with what he says. Finally, there is perhaps a line to be drawn with things like racism but we must I think be wary of outlawing everything we or our faith don't like.

 

[جوري]

Trumble I think has the right, if there is a right answer, in that one cannot cause harm to someone who is dead. Also in a secular society religious things are not regarded as having a basis in fact, that is what you might believe does not become a fact because it cannot be independently verified. So the question of was Mohammed a prophet, was Jesus the Son of God are not admissible as factual evidence because they amount to matters of opinion. I suppose the point in law is that if we admit such things as fact then someone who says they were abducted by aliens must also be believed as if it were a verifiable fact.

Whether or not they are prophets isn't the question it is the spread of false, unjustified injurious material meant to mar their good reputation by slander and calumny-- outside of prophet-hood they were men of good character! and such acts in fact should be punishable for whether the prophet Muhammad (p) has passed on or not isn't important, what is important is that his ummah is alive, his ummah contains those of his lineage, and his ummah is injured by this intentional malice, and we will not stand for it!

My own attitude is that any one can 'dig up' any subject and treat it with respect or contempt - my job after that is to deal with it. So if there is a depiction of the prophet then I suggest we treat it like a question and answer it. Similarly Philip Pullman has written a book called "Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ, its a work of fiction but to a Christian it sounds offensive but I have the book and I can deal with what he says. Finally, there is perhaps a line to be drawn with things like racism but we must I think be wary of outlawing everything we or our faith don't like.

Christians and those former Christians who have fallen out of grace don't get to define for Muslims what is acceptable!

all the best

 

[DataPacRat]

Christians and those former Christians who have fallen out of grace don't get to define for Muslims what is acceptable!

And Muslims don't get to define for non-Muslims what is legal.


Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
lu .iacu'i ma krinu lo du'u .ei mi krici la'e di'u li'u traji lo ka vajni fo lo preti

 

[جوري]

And Muslims don't get to define for non-Muslims what is legal.


Thank you for your time,

Indeed -- so those brave enough to self-immolate for a worthless cause can keep it up. So long as there are Muslims in the world they will be vocal against these contemptible slimebags--

all the best

 

[Hugo]

Whether or not they are prophets isn't the question it is the spread of false, unjustified injurious material meant to mar their good reputation by slander and calumny--[/COLOR] outside of prophet-hood they were men of good character! and such acts in fact should be punishable for whether the prophet Muhammad (p) has passed on or not isn't important, what is important is that his ummah is alive, his ummah contains those of his lineage, and his ummah is injured by this intentional malice, and we will not stand for it!

Some questions that arise in view of what you have said

1. Would Islam, would you accord the same privileges to any belief system since there is no reason in law why Islam is any different from any other faith since they all rest on unprovable propositions. It follows that any supposed hurt is not universal. That is I am not 'hurt' if the prophet is insulted and you are not hurt if Buddha is ridiculed.

2. Can you perhaps say what amounts to an insult towards the Prophet that would cause hurt in the Ummah. For example, if I say one of his actions in my view is reprehensible indeed can I say anything negative - where do you or where does Islam draw a line?

3. You say "we will not stand for it", can you explain who 'we' is and what you mean or what you/we would do?

4. Finally, suppose I find something in Islam offensive will Islam delete it out of respect for my feelings of hurt. For example, it is clear that orthodox teaching on apostates is obnoxious and offensive and falls far short of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[جوري]

Some questions that arise in view of what you have said

1. Would Islam, would you accord the same privileges to any belief system since there is no reason in law why Islam is any different from any other faith since they all rest on unprovable propositions. It follows that any supposed hurt is not universal. That is I am not 'hurt' if the prophet is insulted and you are not hurt if Buddha is ridiculed.

You have asked these questions before and I have answered them before, you should browse the old posts to keep from rehashing old topics?
1- Islam doesn't condone mocking other people's beliefs it says so in the Quran, or have you not read it as you so like to claim? secondly other people should handle their own insults, it isn't incumbent upon a Muslim to fight the battle for a Buddhist!

2. Can you perhaps say what amounts to an insult towards the Prophet that would cause hurt in the Ummah. For example, if I say one of his actions in my view is reprehensible indeed can I say anything negative - where do you or where does Islam draw a line?

No amounts of insults will be tolerated period!

3. You say "we will not stand for it", can you explain who 'we' is and what you mean or what you/we would do?

we who adhere to this religion!

4. Finally, suppose I find something in Islam offensive will Islam delete it out of respect for my feelings of hurt. For example, it is clear that orthodox teaching on apostates is obnoxious and offensive and falls far short of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

See previous topics on the subject covered here ad nauseam!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

The concept of defamation is principally a legal one that goes rather beyond just "telling lies". To be slanderous or libelous a statement/cartoon/whatever must be shown to cause damage to the person(s) concerned of either a financial or psychological nature. That is clearly not the case in the instance of the cartoons which, clearly, are incapable of causing the Prophet (for no other reason than that he is long dead) any damage whatsoever. What the cartoons undoubtably have done is cause considerable offence to many people but, personally, I tend to agree with John Stuart Mill that "mere offence" is insufficient reason to suppress freedom of expression. Somebody or other is likely to be offended by just about anything.

Thats the problem it isnt "mere offence" - to the muslim its much more then that.

What about pornography its censored because it offends some people - is that censoring on mere offence? what about freedom of expression - what about bad language - thats also censored sometimes because it may cause offence?

eg "BEEP".

 

[Trumble]

Thats the problem it isnt "mere offence" - to the muslim its much more then that.

No, it isn't. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that some people can get VERY offended about some things, but that doesn't change the fact that all they are is offended. If I'm brutally honest, I think there's an element of actually wanting to be offended in there as well. Righteous indignation in the company of one's fellows can be intoxicating at times. Think about it, if nobody had made a fuss about cartoons published in an obscure Norwegian newspaper how many muslims would actually have been 'offended' - a few hundred at most? Yet somebody wanted hundreds of millions to get offended by them. It's not just the cartoons either, consider movies like 'The Last Temptation of Christ' or even the totally harmless 'Life of Brian'. People complaining only resulted in much bigger audiences due to the publicity; something so totally predictable you must wonder if the motive was not to reduce the extent of 'offence' but to increase it? Nothing increases religious fervour, particularly collectively, more than when somebody starts gratutiously insulting or 'mocking' the religion concerned or even, as in the last case, when what somebody does can be presented as insults or blasphemy with the flimsiest justification by the "I haven't seen it, but...." brigade.

What about pornography its censored because it offends some people - is that censoring on mere offence? what about freedom of expression - what about bad language - thats also censored sometimes because it may cause offence?

Pornography is not, in fact, censored because it might cause offence, at least in the UK. Anybody likely to be offended by pornography really shouldn't be watching or reading it in the first place. Censoring, like restrictions on circulation, is done to prevent actual harm, not offence, to some of the potential audience (principally children) and in the more unpleasant instances to potential 'actors' by denying the product a legal market. Language is indeed sometimes censored to prevent offence, agreed, but I would suggest that has far more to do with TV networks' self-interest in avoiding grief from politicians and regulators, and losing audience share, than actually worrying about anyone being 'offended'.

 

[جوري]

Pornography is not, in fact, censored because it might cause offence, at least in the UK.

It is here, you need subscription to special channels!

Anybody likely to be offended by pornography really shouldn't be watching or reading it in the first place

Something that subjugates women should be offensive to everyone!

. Censoring, like restrictions on circulation, is done to prevent actual harm, not offence,

Harm can be caused by offense.. people with enough hatred toward Muslims fueled by what they see and no sensibilities to verification in fact go out with intent to harm others, and harm has in fact been inflicted..


all the best

 

[DataPacRat]

Something that subjugates women should be offensive to everyone!

Are you suggesting that all porn subjugates women? If so, you don't know very much about the variety of porn that exists.

Let me put it this way - there's a joke these days, "If you can imagine it, there's porn of it." Some porn involves subjugation of women; some of men; some of ferrets; some of toasters; and there's even more that doesn't involve any subjugation of anyone at all.

 

[جوري]

Are you suggesting that all porn subjugates women? If so, you don't know very much about the variety of porn that exists.

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting and I am not interested in your activities on the side, this forum is visited by young children so I suggest you keep your variety to yourself!

Let me put it this way - there's a joke these days, "If you can imagine it, there's porn of it." Some porn involves subjugation of women; some of men; some of ferrets; some of toasters; and there's even more that doesn't involve any subjugation of anyone at all.

sexual deviance and sickness isn't something to boast and be happy about!

all the best

 

[aadil77]

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting and I am not interested in your activities on the side, this forum is visited by young children so I suggest you keep your variety to yourself!

sexual deviance and sickness isn't something to boast and be happy about!

all the best

;D we do get some strange fellas on here dont we?

 

[جوري]

;D we do get some strange fellas on here dont we?

Sob7an Allah.. some of the stuff I encountered on this forum is stranger than fiction..

 

[DataPacRat]

Sob7an Allah.. some of the stuff I encountered on this forum is stranger than fiction..

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." -- (J.B.S. Haldane, or Arthur Stanley Eddington)

 

[جوري]

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." -- (J.B.S. Haldane, or Arthur Stanley Eddington)

Indeed! ..............................................

 

[Trumble]

It is here, you need subscription to special channels!

That's not censorship, it's a restriction of circulation. As I said, presumably anybody likely to find the content of such channels offensive would not subscribe to them! I assume the only legal restrictions on doing so are those of age.

Something that subjugates women should be offensive to everyone!

I totally agree, although I'd extend 'degradation' if not 'subjugation' to both sexes.

Harm can be caused by offense.. people with enough hatred toward Muslims fueled by what they see and no sensibilities to verification in fact go out with intent to harm others, and harm has in fact been inflicted..

True, although I would add that in the case of the cartoons far more physical harm was inflicted by them than on them. Following Mill, again, restrictions on freedom of expression can be justified if actual harm may result, and indeed that is the justification for the relatively recent UK legislation aimed at tackling incitement to racial and religiously motivated violence. That fact that offence might result in actual harm, though, does not mean the two are synonymous.