Another attack on a cartoonist

[Skavau]

If only we had a clear, proven way to be certain everybody will stop their fist before it impacts with a nose. People seem to have a tendency to push their freedoms to the extreme and it is common for them to fail to see when and where they have transgressed into the rights of their neighbor.

Well, this is the crux of the issue here. People here appear to believe that an affront to their feelings is an affront to their rights. That their feeling offended is somehow more of a problem than censorship. That, I'm afraid I cannot abide as it opens up a very slippery slope to being compelled to censor all things that people find offensive. Scientologists find Xenu.tv, Anonymous websites and Free Zone literature profoundly offensive and by the reckoning of many here, would be absolutely within their rights of 'feeling offended' to pull their content from the internet and from circulation. How do you you objectively define that 'feeling offended' is a good enough reason to impose restrictions and somehow a transgression to their liberty, precisely?

Yet full freedom of speech can backfire. Hitler came to rise to a large degree because he had freedom of speech.

No he didn't. Freedom of speech of course gave Adolph Hitler a backdrop, but I would hardly consider his SA intimidating people into voting for the NSDAP, the Enabling Act (voted by a parliamentary majority) and many of the other backroom deals as products of free speech. Don't forget just how disjointed and corrupt the Weimar Republic was.

At any rate, I find fault with your premise. Are you suggesting that freedom of speech should be restricted in advance on the basis that just perhaps fascist groups, or totalitarian groups or such like might use it to argue their case? Not only is that in itself, a self-contradiction given than imposed censorship of a kind is totalitarian in nature - but it is also ineffective. If there is a prevailing tendency towards fascism sweeping through the population, then it would come regardless or not it would be legal or not to spread it. To take point, in the end - I don't think it mattered that Germany became a democracy. As long as their economic situation was dire and even if the Kaiser was still in place, Nazism would have always had a similar impact to the one it did.

Words are formidable weapons. In some ways even more subtle than material weapons as their damage is subtle and difficult to see. When a recognized weapon is available is readily available to all, it will be misused. There is not happy nor agreeable solution. simple fact is weapons need to to restricted, even though we all have to give up some rights in order to protect everybody. the ideal solution would be for everybody to use Freedom of speech is a safe sane, constructive manner. As distasteful as it is, some degree of control is needed.

In what context do you argue that freedom of speech is a "dangerous weapon"? Yes, I agree it is powerful and an excellent ahead-of-its-time or an excellent analysis has the capacity to change a lot of people's thoughts - but people should not be held accountable for that. Your argument so far appears to contain a lot of fear of people being convinced of fascism and other unpleasantries through the means of speech (and I assume you're going to connect media that mocks, or insults religion as enablers for that). I would say in direct response that this the price that we pay for free speech, and it is an important price for all of our liberty we take for granted in saying what we say and expressing what we belief stems from it. Your liberty to preach Islam is the same liberty defectors use to insult, satirize and mock Islam. My liberty to promote humanism is the same liberty that Christians use to promote Christianity. To drive a wedge and declare some as unacceptable based on 'hurt feelings' not only betrays the historical development of free speech, but it also opens everyone else up to have their cake and eat it too and demand their own restrictions.

I would ask you though, as I have asked several others - a specific question: On the internet as I suspect you may know there exist parodies of wikipedia. Their intent is humour and all of their articles mock, deride and satirize the topic. One of the websites is explicit, and the other is not so explicit. They both have articles on all of the topics that wikipedia does and function just as wikipedia - including articles on Islam. I mean these websites have been posting cartoons and depicitions of Mohammed for at least as long as the original Danish cartoon 'controversy'. Do you propose that these websites, by your own beliefs be shut down and removed from the internet?

If so, would you by extension then suggest that any internet user who insults Islam, or insults any particular religion have their ISP contacted and be threatened with suspension of their service? Why or why not?

Cheers

 

[aamirsaab]

The issue is that freedom of speech just doesn't exist. There are limitations (in most cases, for good reason!).

To go around, prancing that oh my rights this and my freedom that is just nonsense. Basic human psychology, i.e. reciprocity and the mutual understandings of brotherhood/sisterhood and mankind OVERRIDE any other freedom or right any day of the week - you can test this out in real life by visiting a hospital and shouting BOMB!, then promptly being arrested for being a douche. It is unfortunate that people of so called high calibre and position do not understand this simple concept, treating others like something they just stepped in. But that has always been the case, and adding the internet into the mix, is likely to get worse.

Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.

 

[Skavau]

The issue is that freedom of speech just doesn't exist. There are limitations (in most cases, for good reason!).

There are limitations, indeed. However what has yet to be reasonably argued is that 'offense' is reason enough for censorship.

To go around, prancing that oh my rights this and my freedom that is just nonsense. Basic human psychology, i.e. reciprocity and the mutual understandings of brotherhood/sisterhood and mankind OVERRIDE any other freedom or right any day of the week

Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information. If we were to always cater to the crowd that declare their hurt feelings as more important than other people's liberty then there would never ever be the possibility of protest. There would never ever be the possibility of humour in any public domain. There would never ever be the possibility of any dissent and any complaints would literally kill off entire subjects of discussion.

Indeed the anonymous society is even more so when you consider the internet (which has demonstrated repeatedly that it is beyond censorship and pro virality).

Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.

Yes, sure . You ought bear the intellectual consequences of what you write. Indeed on this also, it is to note that racial slurs are not illegal. It is a societal accomplishment that people consider them so rephrensible and unacceptable. What you are talking about already exists.

Just consider how society detests those who claim the holocaust did not happen. Just consider how society reacts to those who claim racial superiority.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Social inhibition is a good thing; it keeps you from saying something really, really stupid. This isn't censorship from the government; it's something that should be seen in an extremely positive light. The planet I came from, we called it respect.

LOL. True.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information.

True. And this is exactly what happens.

If you would notice - there are no opinions around you. Most people are mute

What you think is your opinion is just a recitation of something you heard on the news.

How do I know that it is not your opinion? Because I already heard it somewhere else.

People are very predictable today and they think that they have freedom of speech while having
freedom of speech without ever being taught how to think (and I mean truly thinking
for yourself and not recycling ideas you get from other sources) is at best useless.

Even worse - it might hurt other people because you might be transferring harmful ideas without
even checking them.

For instance - the benefit you, and your society, would get from truly co-operating with Muslims out of respect would be
so much far beyond the benefit of drawing some foolish cartoon like a five year old.

Did you thought about that?

 

[Skavau]

People are very predictable today and they think that they have freedom of speech while having
freedom of speech without ever being taught how to think (and I mean truly thinking
for yourself and not recycling ideas you get from other sources) is at best useless.

The possibility that someone is likely to have a unique and original opinion in a field of millions is profoundly unlikely, and also completely irrelevant to this topic.

For instance - the benefit you, and your society, would get from truly co-operating with Muslims out of respect would be
so much far beyond the benefit of drawing some foolish cartoon like a five year old.

Our society is not a collective. Our politicians can sit down with senior representatives of Islam in the UK, or in other nationstates and pay them lipservice. They could do more to prevent their discrimination in society (which is incumbent on both sides - not just the politicians here). It is not incumbent upon a member of society to be compelled to 'respect' and 'recognise' Islamic concepts of discussion.

And by the way, people being able to ridicule their beliefs on some internet forum is not discrimination.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Our society is not a collective.

It is. Just dis-functional.

 

[Skavau]

It is. Just dis-functional.

No it isn't, sorry. Do you even understand what collectivism is and involves?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Yes.

And it is dis-functional.

If it would be functional you wouldn't have all the primitive wars you have today.

 

[Skavau]

Yes.

And it is dis-functional.

So explain to me what you think collectivism is, and then explain to me how you think 'my society' is a collective, please.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Our world is a collective as we are all connected to each other and are responsible for each other.

Your society is one organ in the human collective which is at this point is dis-functional since it is engaged
in war with other parts of this collective.

 

[Skavau]

Our world is a collective as we are all connected to each other and are responsible for each other.

So, I take it by that rather mundane explanation you don't know what 'collectivism' is.

Your society is one organ in the human collective which is at this point is dis-functional since it is engaged
in war with other parts of this collective.

So your definition of 'collective' apparently just means 'us'. How semantically null.

At any rate, the fact that 'our society' is at war with others has nothing to do with anything regarding this thread.

 

[Mohamed_Sadiq]

These threads about cartoonist is getting annoying now seriously. Those people that support the cartoonist are pathetic, we don't have no shoulders for you to cry on alright. Get sympathy elsewhere!! Bunch of mad people, leave our religion ALONE!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE!!!

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

These threads about cartoonist is getting annoying now seriously. Those people that support the cartoonist are pathetic, we don't have no shoulders for you to cry on alright. Get sympathy elsewhere!! Bunch of mad people, leave our religion ALONE!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE!!!

You are right. I do not have energy for this foolishness.

 

[JETforce]

Does a person have the right to cry "Fire" in a crowded theater, simply to cause panic?

Well, where I live, there isn't a law against that, the theater will just kick you out if you do that, I guess unless someone gets hurt. A lot of people don't know where that saying originated. It originated in court battles in the US over the banning of the Socialist Party and other progressive parties in the early 1900s (mind you, the bans were minimal, given their big success during that time) where the justification for their banning was "what's next, allowing people to scream fire or falling boulder in crowded areas?" I think it's a bad example, with bad origins.

 

[aamirsaab]

There are limitations, indeed. However what has yet to be reasonably argued is that 'offense' is reason enough for censorship.

This is where common decency and respect should step in...

Many of us now live in an almost anonymous society. Millions of people in driving distances of each other. Mutual understanding between millions of people that all find some things acceptable, some things unacceptable would almost inevitably result in the ridiculous situation of the absolute prohibitation of all information. If we were to always cater to the crowd that declare their hurt feelings as more important than other people's liberty then there would never ever be the possibility of protest. There would never ever be the possibility of humour in any public domain. There would never ever be the possibility of any dissent and any complaints would literally kill off entire subjects of discussion.

Respect for your fellow man should always be a priority. I'm not saying one should walk on egg shells, and there is always room for humour. But, it is indeed possible to tell a joke without any form of insult (I used to drop them in every now and again during my college years)

Indeed the anonymous society is even more so when you consider the internet (which has demonstrated repeatedly that it is beyond censorship and pro virality).

Yeah, I said it before in the libel/slander thread; internet is just the A-hole of mankind.

Yes, sure . You ought bear the intellectual consequences of what you write. Indeed on this also, it is to note that racial slurs are not illegal. It is a societal accomplishment that people consider them so rephrensible and unacceptable. What you are talking about already exists.

I know it exists, my point was that this should not be forgotten nor pushed below the right to insult someone.

Just consider how society detests those who claim the holocaust did not happen. Just consider how society reacts to those who claim racial superiority.

Such behaviour should always be considered horrible and disgusting. I'm glad for the most part it is, but as will always be the case, some will act like jerks. What my point is, the way some people chant and rave about freedom of speech indicates a significant rise in such horrible acts via desensitization.

 

[جوري]

Well, where I live, there isn't a law against that, the theater will just kick you out if you do that, I guess unless someone gets hurt. A lot of people don't know where that saying originated. It originated in court battles in the US over the banning of the Socialist Party and other progressive parties in the early 1900s (mind you, the bans were minimal, given their big success during that time) where the justification for their banning was "what's next, allowing people to scream fire or falling boulder in crowded areas?" I think it's a bad example, with bad origins.

Actually people who cause false alarms of whatever nature are imprisoned/and/or fined.. two girls who pulled the fire alarm in a school because they didn't want to sit for the finals, weren't only kicked out, but their family charged for causing undue panic, and for the police and firetrucks called at the scene.. a rather exorbitant fee for being stupid. I think rather than stating what is and what isn't a bad example that you should take everything and deal with it singularly from multiple views.. you'll recognize that said mockery isn't at all about free speech, it is about pushing and pushing to see what you can get away with and we see that this hypocrisy isn't applied to other venues of the same nature.. only when it comes to Muslims since Muslims are now in season!

all the best

 

[shuraimfan4lyf]

*unsubscribes*

 

[smile]

the dude looks pretty normal t me
dunno why u say he looks satanic