Free speech cannot be an excuse for hate

[Keltoi]

First, I would like to say - I am not against criticism, but I am of ridiculing. Ridiculing has no good to it - just can cause hatred. Criticism, is I believe completly different. I have no problem with criticism, but what good is mocking other peoples Prophet in a form say, cartoons, knowing it only angers them - what benefit did you achieve? Did you feel joyous freedom of having been able to say something for no purpose but piss alot of people off - just for the sake of it?

Who decides what is criticism and what is ridicule? What you consider to be ridicule another can consider to be criticism. Personally, I thought the cartoons were full of criticism...and full of ridicule. While I do agree that newspaper publications and other media have a responsibility to properly edit what they deem necessary for public consumption, I do not think their freedom to be jerks, if they so choose, should be fringed upon. In a free market system, if you don't like the product you don't buy it.

 

[SixTen]

Who decides what is criticism and what is ridicule? What you consider to be ridicule another can consider to be criticism. Personally, I thought the cartoons were full of criticism...and full of ridicule. While I do agree that newspaper publications and other media have a responsibility to properly edit what they deem necessary for public consumption, I do not think their freedom to be jerks, if they so choose, should be fringed upon. In a free market system, if you don't like the product you don't buy it.

Care to explain how the cartoons were criticism?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

I do not think their freedom to be jerks, if they so choose, should be fringed upon.

but it disturbs the peace. and its not a small disturbance.


if people arent allowed to shout and howl or play loud music at night because it disturbs the neighbours then why are they allowed to provoke other religions intentionally?

 

[Suomipoika]

Those who want freedom of speech really want the ability to get away with insulting someone i.e ''I can call you a racist term and you cannot do a **** thing about it other than sit there and cry - that's right, you aren't allowed to report it to the police or any of that crap, just sit here and listen to my insults...It's my right ****it!''

So, all in all, freedom of speech already exists in its entirety - what adamant supporters of this freedom truly want is the lack of negative consequences (both socially and legally) towards them. To use a Tekken analogy: I'm allowed to cheap throw you all I want - you aren't allowed to press: reset, start, block, punch or kick or any of the four directional buttons. In fact, the only thing you can do is sit there and take the beatings...like a man!

Im sorry, but this is really offensive, insulting and hurtful generalisation. I support "total" freedom of speech, (its one of my core values and Id imagine its as important to me as Islam is to muslims) but I really dont want to insult anyone.

Overall this place is really depressing considering how much hate is allowed in here and I have never seen so much racism in my life without actually looking for it and I have never felt so hated before for simply because what I am than on various muslim and Islam related discussion forums. Ive asked this before, on this forum too I think, and never really gotten a real answer, who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be? Which is why I support the freedom of speech the way I do. I do not think a system can ever be worked that doesnt create a separate classes of people between groups that can be insulted and groups that cannot be based on what they believe in. I strongly feel the situation is alreadly like that in Finland.

You over generalised that people like me want to get away with insulting others, I over generalise that religious people like you want a free hand to insult the values of others but have their own values protected.

 

[aamirsaab]

Im sorry, but this is really offensive, insulting and hurtful generalisation. I support "total" freedom of speech, (its one of my core values and Id imagine its as important to me as Islam is to muslims) but I really dont want to insult anyone.

Overall this place is really depressing considering how much hate is allowed in here and I have never seen so much racism in my life without actually looking for it and I have never felt so hated before for simply because what I am than on various muslim and Islam related discussion forums. Ive asked this before, on this forum too I think, and never really gotten a real answer, who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be? Which is why I support the freedom of speech the way I do. I do not think a system can ever be worked that doesnt create a separate classes of people between groups that can be insulted and groups that cannot be based on what they believe in. I strongly feel the situation is alreadly like that in Finland.

You over generalised that people like me want to get away with insulting others, I over generalise that religious people like you want a free hand to insult the values of others but have their own values protected.

I think you have misunderstood my post and I honestly did not mean to offend anyone. Look all I was saying is freedom of speech already exists. What certain folk want is to remove the negative consequence of it. You can say anything you want in the UK - it's not like you'll get shot for it. But, you can be reported for some of those (offensive) remarks provided someone reports it to the police or authority (which is the other person's right!). So, essentially what certain freedom of speech proponenents want is to be legally allowed to criticise anything (by this I mean it cannot be categorised as an arrestable offence). The initial reasoning for the cartoon crisis was freedom of speech (but, it was targeted more at eliminating the social taboos!) - the rest of the world jumped on the freedom of speech bandwagon AFTER muslims expressed disgust at the cartoons, thereby supporting my previous statement that people want the right to insult and get away with it. Perhaps not in finland or denmark, but certainly this view was expressed in the West.

You did raise a good question, which I shall answer:
''who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be?''

This is down to two things:
Society (in terms of social taboos)
Government (in terms of legal issues)

That's it. An individual has little control over it in either matter - it's down to the masses.

P.s Again, to reiterrate; freedom of speech already exists and I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it is good (to an extent) since it allows constructive criticism. But, what certain folk want to do is to a: break down social taboos (which is nigh on impossible) and break down the legal related consequences that protect certain individuals (such as those who follow a particular religion or ideology) - this innevitably leads to DESTRUCTIVE criticism!

 

[Suomipoika]

I think you have misunderstood my post and I honestly did not mean to offend anyone. Look all I was saying is freedom of speech already exists. What certain folk want is to remove the negative consequence of it. You can say anything you want in the UK - it's not like you'll get shot for it. But, you can be reported for some of those (offensive) remarks provided someone reports it to the police or authority (which is the other person's right!). So, essentially what certain freedom of speech proponenents want is to be legally allowed to criticise anything (by this I mean it cannot be categorised as an arrestable offence). The initial reasoning for the cartoon crisis was freedom of speech (but, it was targeted more at eliminating the social taboos!) - the rest of the world jumped on the freedom of speech bandwagon AFTER muslims expressed disgust at the cartoons, thereby supporting my previous statement that people want the right to insult and get away with it. Perhaps not in finland or denmark, but certainly this view was expressed in the West.

Im really one of those "certain" people that want a situation where any value, be it religion, political ideology or whatever can be insulted, ridiculed, hated and nothing is sacred. Because...

You did raise a good question, which I shall answer:
''who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be?''

This is down to two things:
Society (in terms of social taboos)
Government (in terms of legal issues)

That's it. An individual has little control over it in either matter - it's down to the masses.

Those are the "judges" in Finland too as to what is allowed and what is not. To give an example. Drawing pig on cross is crime, but drawing pigs with political cartoons or satire is perfectly accetable. So end result is, religious people are worth more and better protected than non-religious. I dont want to be a second class citizen, I want same protection for my feelings than what the religious people have, or actually none for anybody because as stated earlier, I dont really see a way to for a system which takes into account everyones feelings. Society and goverment, atleast in Finland, isnt smart enough to do that.

Bottomline, it has nothing to do with wanting to insult others but more to do with getting treated equally.

 

[aamirsaab]

....
Those are the "judges" in Finland too as to what is allowed and what is not. To give an example. Drawing pig on cross is crime, but drawing pigs with political cartoons or satire is perfectly accetable. So end result is, religious people are worth more and better protected than non-religious. I dont want to be a second class citizen, I want same protection for my feelings than what the religious people have, or actually none for anybody because as stated earlier, I dont really see a way to for a system which takes into account everyones feelings. Society and goverment, atleast in Finland, isnt smart enough to do that.

Clearly I have more learning to do with regards to Finland's social norms.

Bottomline, it has nothing to do with wanting to insult others but more to do with getting treated equally.

I'm all for equality, my friend.

Peace

 

[Keltoi]

Care to explain how the cartoons were criticism?

From a political standpoint the critique was obvious. People are strapping on bombs and killing themselves and others with the justification of "defense of Islam" or some other such religious excuse. The criticism was quite apparent. One can argue that it was offensive, but one can't honestly suggest there was no criticism involved.

 

[SixTen]

From a political standpoint the critique was obvious. People are strapping on bombs and killing themselves and others with the justification of "defense of Islam" or some other such religious excuse. The criticism was quite apparent. One can argue that it was offensive, but one can't honestly suggest there was no criticism involved.

Well, their was a picture of the Islamic prophet with a bomb for a hat. Care to tell me, how this is political criticism?

Its one thing, to make a picture of say, Osama with a bomb as a hat - then to someone who has nothing to do with it. Or do you feel you have some certain knowledge to state otherwise?

 

[Keltoi]

Well, their was a picture of the Islamic prophet with a bomb for a hat. Care to tell me, how this is political criticism?

Its one thing, to make a picture of say, Osama with a bomb as a hat - then to someone who has nothing to do with it. Or do you feel you have some certain knowledge to state otherwise?

Oh c'mon, I know you aren't that naive. Why Mohammed? Because the Prophet Mohammed is the key figure in Islam. Imagine if Christians were going around blowing stuff up, not to mention themselves, and stated they were doing it for Christ(Christianity). A newspaper printed a cartoon of Christ with bombs hanging from the Cross...are you telling me you wouldn't get the criticism? Of course you would. Is it offensive? Hell yes.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Oh c'mon, I know you aren't that naive. Why Mohammed?

I have been trying so hard to avoid controversy, but what the heck. If you go to any urban neighborhood in America... any one at all, and say this to some one, you're asking for a butt kicking! Your Mamma! With that in mind, yes... maybe it's better to just shut the cake hole. Some people care about their mothers. Some people care about their prophet. Some people CARE!

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Keltoi]

I have been trying so hard to avoid controversy, but what the heck. If you go to any urban neighborhood in America... any one at all, and say this to some one, you're asking for a butt kicking! Your Mamma! With that in mind, yes... maybe it's better to just shut the cake hole. Some people care about their mothers. Some people care about their prophet. Some people CARE!

The Ninth Scribe

Are you actually suggesting people say things that other people don't like? Wow, what a concept.

You can get beat up for saying bad things about a football team in the wrong bar. So what? That is life. I don't want my freedom to call the New England Patriots a bunch of overpaid jerks with a cheating head coach to be taken away because a fan will be offended. Would you?

 

[Tornado]

Are you actually suggesting people say things that other people don't like? Wow, what a concept.

You can get beat up for saying bad things about a football team in the wrong bar. So what? That is life. I don't want my freedom to call the New England Patriots a bunch of overpaid jerks with a cheating head coach to be taken away because a fan will be offended. Would you?

Exactly. I think freedom of speech should be total. If you want to ridicule Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc.., it is up to you as long as no one gets hurt. If your feelings get hurt, so be it, just ignore.

 

[YusufNoor]

Oh c'mon, I know you aren't that naive. Why Mohammed? Because the Prophet Mohammed is the key figure in Islam.

but the Prophet[pbuh] was NEVER a terrorist no matter how much you misread the Seerah!


Imagine if Christians were going around blowing stuff up, not to mention themselves, and stated they were doing it for Christ(Christianity). A newspaper printed a cartoon of Christ with bombs hanging from the Cross...

i rather doubt it, the "sect" of the group involved would more likely take the hit! Jesus[pbuh] escapes except in bad art...

are you telling me you wouldn't get the criticism? Of course you would. Is it offensive? Hell yes.

Peace,

on a different note, if 9/11 is the mother of all terrorists attacks, then the cartoons should have either Dubya, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, General Meyers or even Colin Powell in them! put them in turbans if you want as they are ones in charge of "Islamic terrorism!"

link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370

You can get beat up for saying bad things about a football team in the wrong bar. So what? That is life. I don't want my freedom to call the New England Patriots a bunch of overpaid jerks with a cheating head coach to be taken away because a fan will be offended. Would you?

try saying that in Beantown!

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Are you actually suggesting people say things that other people don't like? Wow, what a concept.

You can get beat up for saying bad things about a football team in the wrong bar. So what? That is life. I don't want my freedom to call the New England Patriots a bunch of overpaid jerks with a cheating head coach to be taken away because a fan will be offended. Would you?

Your confusing issues again. My point is that provocation ALWAYS leads to fights! Some are silly fights, like what you described, the football teams. Others are more... personal, and those are the ones that always cause problems. My youngest son, Kevin, when he was 14, carved a swastika onto my driveway. He thought it was funny. I went ballistic and reminded him that our house could have been burned to the ground over something like that - and no one would have felt sorry for us! There is a line that should be drawn because when people step over it, silly things can become very ugly very quickly. I teach my children to not invite this type of ugliness... even if it does seem silly to them. The Holocaust is not a joke. A person's mother is not a joke. A people's prophet is not a joke. Swastikas are not a joke. In fact, a law was recently passed in Massachusetts: a person who is caught making these "funnies" can go to jail for Hate Crimes!

I wouldn't have blamed a Jew for burning my house down, if they had seen the swastika. I don't blame anyone for an attack that is provoked.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

Exactly. I think freedom of speech should be total. If you want to ridicule Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, etc.., it is up to you as long as no one gets hurt. If your feelings get hurt, so be it, just ignore.

No holds barred... total and complete free-for-all? Society would crumble so fast it would make your head spin! Words become deeds very quickly. If people say what ever they want, they will begin to do whatever they want, in no time at all. Vulgar language will produce a vulgar people.

Personally, I believe Bush has caused an aweful lot of misery here and overseas ~ but, sticks and stones, right?

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Tornado]

No holds barred... total and complete free-for-all? Society would crumble so fast it would make your head spin! Words become deeds very quickly. If people say what ever they want, they will begin to do whatever they want, in no time at all. Vulgar language will produce a vulgar people.

The Ninth Scribe

How do you know this exactly, when has this happened? How do you know that such a society would crumble. We are kind of close to it and we see nothing close to it. If you want to insult me with words, go ahead, as I don't get hurt physically.

 

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^But u get offended emotionally. Gotcha.


On a side note...

If you support hatred, ridiculing, disprespect or racism of a religion/group of people, you are a serious nutcase! Don't hope for peace if you support something that prevents peace in the first place! By golly, it's not that hard. Don't justify hatred. PERIOD.

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

How do you know this exactly, when has this happened? How do you know that such a society would crumble. We are kind of close to it and we see nothing close to it. If you want to insult me with words, go ahead, as I don't get hurt physically.

Pick a major city? It all began with the free speech. Now we have stuff like car-porn. These metal testicles that hang from one's back bumper (a weird form of self-expression). Sure, YOU might think it's funny, but what do you intend to say to your 8 year old daughter? And then there is all the streaking, running buck naked through a public place. Again, self expression, but you wouldn't want your 8 year old daughter to do that. Hmmm. There's, of course, the middle finger. No biggy, but again, you wouldn't want people to teach this to your 8 year old daughter.

Gee, it's funny the way my childhood comes back to me. It all began when I was 8 years old, with a poster containing 24 or so screen shots of an old woman sitting on a rocker. These screen shots appeared under a banner that read: Express Yourself. In the last of the screen shots, the old woman was giving the finger to the camera... and you can guess the rest? I don't know, I can see how words would cause deeds of the same nature. I can see how this would snow-ball.

The alternative? Death... or something very close to it. A billion human souls, without feelings, that don't give a **** about anything. Problem solved... anyone could say whatever they wanted and no one would even care.

The Ninth Scribe

 

[Muezzin]

In a way, it's very amusing to see people get so hot and bothered over so simply an issue.

In the UK, you are free to say what you want, as long as you're not inciting hatred and/or violence, as that would be a crime. Most people would agree with this.