Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

[Mustafa2012]

Assalaamu alaykum,

I thought it might be useful for you guys to read this article in BBC News today.

"A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan."

Search the article on Google. Since I'm still new I can't post links yet.

If you think such a thing as freedom of speech exists then you're wrong.

The truth is that it only exists if it suits the needs of the country you live in or certain governments. In most cases this will be a non-muslim government.

If it doesn't suit their needs then you can kiss your freedom of speech goodbye because it's a one sided freedom that is there to serve the laws of the country you live in just like the U.N.

For e.g. let's take Jews and The Holocaust. If anyone tries to deny The Holocaust then it's considered a crime in many countries. That's a special privilege they get for the "huge helping hand" they provide to the world.

Yet if any the sacred history of any other religion is denied or questioned like the recent Channel 4 Documentary, then it's not considered a crime. That's "Freedom of Speech".

Another is example this forum or any publicly open forum or message board.

Do you think that just because this is a Islamic Forum that only muslims or average citizens are are reading these posts?

Do you think you can exercise your freedom of speech on a forum like this?

Think again. For every member there's around 10 guests.

I guarantee you, there are people who are paid full time to monitor every post on public forums like these and other forums and popular social networks.

After all how do you think the guy above got found out?

Every word you type is monitored. Anything you say that is mildly worrying to Uncle Sam is noted down including your IP address and everything else.

You think I'm paranoid? It's time you woke up to the reality of public forums!

Just be careful and watch what you say in public.

Don't give people an excuse to take away your freedoms.

 

[sister herb]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19604735

And how surprise, headline in other place was:

"Muslim in court after insulting six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan"

 

[observer]

I thought it might be useful for you guys to read this article in BBC News today.

"A teenager has been found guilty of posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan."

Search the article on Google. Since I'm still new I can't post links yet.

If you think such a thing as freedom of speech exists then you're wrong.

The truth is that it only exists if it suits the needs of the country you live in or certain governments. In most cases this will be a non-muslim government.

That's not quite true. That guy was free to say that British troops should not be in Afghanistan. He was free to protest about it all he wanted, to go to his local town centre and shout and scream about it if he so wished.

He cannot call for people to be killed - that's where the crime is here.

In the same way, I could protest about Islam/Christianity/Judaism if I wanted, but I could not call for the deaths of Muslims/Christians/Jews.

I do agree though that it's a very fine line and a difficult one to judge. As a general rule (here in the UK) anything which incites violence or hatred against others is not allowed.
Difficult distinction to make though.

 

[sister herb]

Freedom of speech is no excuse for insulting religious symbols

[ 15/09/2012 - 09:59 PM ]

By Khalid Amayreh* in occupied Jerusalem



The tragic consequences triggered by the recent sleazy anti-Islam film "innocence of Muslims" have presented several challenges to political and religious leaders in the West as well as the Muslim world.

They have also shown how an utterly insignificant act by a little known, though malicious individual, could reverberate fast throughout the globe, causing lethal and fatal repercussions and destroying and ending the lives of innocent people.

The modern media, in its numerous forms, have certainly played a role in spreading the sleazy film and also in provoking and infuriating Muslims. None the less, the media's role hasn't exceeded that of the proverbial messenger.

In the final analysis, the media didn't make the news, it just reported it.

The anti-Islam film is undoubtedly a malicious and wicked act meant to insult and provoke. This is what the producer of the film himself said of his intent behind embarking on the cheap feat.

But Muslims have not acted ideally, too. They seem to have overreacted to the original calculated provocation by attacking embassies and indulging in violence, which led to the spilling of innocent blood.

I believe all sides, those who made, financed and promoted the film, as well as those mobs that overreacted to it, are wrong.

But saying so is not enough, if only to prevent the recurrence of similar events.

I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.

I am not talking about legitimate freedom of speech and expression and other civil liberties which we all value and respect. What I have in mind is deliberately offending religious sensibilities with malice aforethought.

This is more than just an academic matter since ignoring it does obviously cause the shedding of innocent blood.

Having studied at and graduated from a number of American colleges, I realize how most Americans are jealously fanatical about preserving and clinging to their constitution, especially the First Amendment.

However, Americans and others westerners ought to understand that the religious and cultural traditions of other people, e.g. Muslims, ought to be respected as well. The First Amendment must not be used as an excuse to offend Muslims and their faith, as well as other religious traditions.

There are many wise people in America who could find the perfect formula to resolve this problem once and for all. In the final analysis, the American constitution was founded and shaped in a way that would protect religion from the interference, hegemony and encroachment of the state, not the other way around.

And it is not impossible to strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the right of adherents of various religious groups not to be offended. After all, one's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

In some western countries, laws have been enacted against those who deny the holocaust. And in America itself, the country of the First Amendment, politicians and journalist think ten times before thinking of criticizing Israel and Jews.

Hence, the visibly malicious discourse against Islam and its symbols in the US and some other Western countries has more to do with a morbid and hateful proclivity to malign, smear and besmirch and less with the legitimate practice of freedom of speech and expression.

In the final analysis, my right not to be offended and insulted overrides a scoundrel's right to malign the Prophet of Islam in order to satisfy his sick Islamophobia.

The American Civil Liberty Union is likely to vociferously object to this argument. And they would probably make many counter arguments which may sound valid.

But the ACLU, which has done many good things and defended many good causes, can not guarantee that insulting religious symbols will not lead to further bloodshed. Which brings us to the ultimate argument that in such circumstances when one is faced with conflicting rights and conflicting freedoms, it is never enough to be right; one has to be wise as well? Hence, the need for the delicate, fine balances between freedom of expression and the right not to be offended.

I also hope that the tragic events of the past few days will prompt a genuine religious dialogue between Muslim and Christian leaders. The task of maintaining the peace, let alone building stable and friendly relations between the followers of the great religions is too paramount a task to be left for pyromaniacs on both sides.

We must start this dialogue right away. We owe it to the victims of the latest madness to see to it that fanatics and ignoramuses on both sides of the isle are not allowed to savage our faces and burn our hearts with the fire of their ignorance and fanaticism.

* Khalid Amayreh is an American-educated journalist living in the southern West Bank town of Dura near Hebron. He graduated from the University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1981. He also, received a Master degree in Journalism from the University of Southern Illinois at Carbondale in 1983.

Source: http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/en/...Wlm07+QSZdzV93lvoobEuugH5exheorEsoNBbcfIFi8s=

 

[observer]

I urge responsible political and religious leaders in the West and Muslim world to make every possible effort to strike a delicate balance between freedom of speech and misusing or abusing that freedom, e.g. by insulting religious symbols and offending religious faith.

I think this is a good aim - finding that balance; well, that's a lot harder. You have to be able to criticise religion in a free society, it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?

 

[Mustafa2012]

Fair enough. You have a point. Maybe he should have expressed his dis-contentment in other ways.

But according to the BBC news' wording of what he said, his words could be interpreted in different ways.

One way of interpreting it is that it was just his own personal opinion about how he felt because according to your own media sources and statistics as well as your own expert politicians, many admit that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more harm than achieve what they set out to achieve and many are opposed to the wars.

To me it doesn't sound like he made a call for people to be killed because I'm sure that person was aware of the consequences of making such a stupid statement like that in public.

The only reason he got convicted was because he made that statement whilst residing in a country that is opposed to his views and where they call the shots and decide what is or isn't freedom of speech when it suits their purposes.

And that was my point in the original post in this thread that freedom of speech is something that exists only when it serves the purpose of the host nation. Otherwise it's just an illusion like many other so called freedoms.

Personally, I feel really sorry for your troops because they are just being used for the purposes of capitalistic gain (admitted by some of your top brass) which is being disguised and promoted by the media as Patriotism. The sad reality is that they or their families will most likely never be recompensed enough for the great sacrifices they are making for their country. They won't ever see any of the gains being made from the huge oil and mineral contracts being arranged behind the scenes which is what they're really fighting for (although they think they're doing it for their country)

What's even sadder is that the average citizen never really has a say in foreign policy because the end decision is made without their approval just like it did with Iraq which makes me wonder how democratic a democracy really is.

 

[جوري]

it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?

I don't know what is the baseline? Seems like libel and slander/hate and inflammatory instigation are all forms of free speech but at the same time punishable by law if the 'right party' is the one under the assault. Is that part of the package in the west? I grew up in the midst of people who have respect even for the guy who shines your shoe and all of a sudden we've to rid of fine manners to meet on a level.. and it is unfortunate that we've to lower ourselves to combat what you or they deem 'free speech'

 

[observer]

The war is hugely unpopular here - the soldiers are well respected though, mainly because it is widely recognized that it's not their fault that they are there - governments start wars, not soldiers.
His posting appeared to suggest that soldiers deserved to die which is seen here as incitement. But I agree that it's really difficult drawing that line.

I think he was also punished harshly as we have recently had here a crackdown on internet hate speech - insulting anyone because of race/religion/profession is being punished as a message that you can't say whatever you want on the net - the limits are the same as in "real" society.

What's even sadder is that the average citizen never really has a say in foreign policy because the end decision is made without their approval just like it did with Iraq which makes me wonder how democratic a democracy really is.

Definitely. One million marched against invading Iraq in London - the government, as you say, just didn't listen.

 

[observer]

I don't know what is the baseline? Seems like libel and slander/hate and inflammatory instigation are all forms of free speech but at the same time punishable by law if the 'right party' is the one under the assault. Is that part of the package in the west? I grew up in the midst of people who have respect even for the guy who shines your shoe and all of a sudden we've to rid of fine manners to meet on a level.. and it is unfortunate that we've to lower ourselves to combat what you or they deem 'free speech'

I don't agree that the west is without manners, I think that's very unfair.

Although I think you're right when you ask "what is the baseline?". No-one really knows, which is why it is constantly tested (and lawyers make big money!!!).

 

[جوري]

ech'
I don't agree that the west is without manners, I think that's very unfair.

Motivated by litigation unfortunately from what I have seen. And those (that I am friends with) who are what you'd consider WASPS have in spite of overt good manners s dark side of horrible prejudices that rear their ugly heads every now and then that it takes my breath away and I don't usually take the 'jokes' although not directed toward me but say black people or Mexicans or whomever they deem inferior as funny.

Although I think you're right when you ask "what is the baseline?". No-one really knows, which is why it is constantly tested (and lawyers make big money!!!).

I agree especially with the last part of that statement!

best,

 

[Mustafa2012]

The war is hugely unpopular here - the soldiers are well respected though, mainly because it is widely recognized that it's not their fault that they are there - governments start wars, not soldiers.
His posting appeared to suggest that soldiers deserved to die which is seen here as incitement. But I agree that it's really difficult drawing that line.

I think he was also punished harshly as we have recently had here a crackdown on internet hate speech - insulting anyone because of race/religion/profession is being punished as a message that you can't say whatever you want on the net - the limits are the same as in "real" society.


Definitely. One million marched against invading Iraq in London - the government, as you say, just didn't listen.

Ok fair enough. He should have thought more carefully about what he said.

I'm glad we agree on some important points which many people seem to miss in the midst of all the created confusion and mis-information being published in the media.

We need to learn more to "read between the lines" so to speak.

Which is why it is so important for people to get their information or the news from a no. of sources, preferably independent.

Relying too much on one source of media can result in getting a biased one-sided view of the reality of things.

There's a wide range of sources we can refer to besides newspapers like on-line internet forums, radio, TV and specialist magazines and websites.

I've always found forums and radio interviews and analyses to be far more useful and interesting than newspapers because they are often made by educated, informed and balanced people.

 

[observer]

Ok fair enough. He should have thought more carefully about what he said.

I'm glad we agree on some important points which many people seem to miss in the midst of all the created confusion and mis-information being published in the media.

We need to learn more to "read between the lines" so to speak.

Which is why it is so important for people to get their information or the news from a no. of sources, preferably independent.

Relying too much on one source of media can result in getting a biased one-sided view of the reality of things.

There's a wide range of sources we can refer to besides newspapers like on-line internet forums, radio, TV and specialist magazines and websites.

I've always found forums and radio interviews and analyses to be far more useful and interesting than newspapers because they are often made by educated, informed and balanced people.

Totally agree - with the net now news and information can be got from so many sources - people just need to start using them!

 

[Mustafa2012]

Totally agree - with the net now news and information can be got from so many sources - people just need to start using them!

Yes, definitely.

Huge newspaper advertising contracts can sometimes influence the way that a particular story or stories is/are published so it's best to read around for a balanced view on any given topic.

 

[Muezzin]

There's no such thing as absoloute freedom, nor should there be. The trouble is people disagree on where the limits should be.

 

[glo]

Hi observer, and welcome to the LI forum. :thankyou:

I do agree though that it's a very fine line and a difficult one to judge. As a general rule (here in the UK) anything which incites violence or hatred against others is not allowed.
Difficult distinction to make though.

Is there legislation other than the one relating to hate crime?
As far as I understand hate crime only covers disability, gender-identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation. So I am not sure how this could apply to the example given of somebody calling for the death of certain people.

Hate crime involves any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a personal characteristic. The definition covers five main strands, in particular - disability, gender-identity, race, religion or faith and sexual orientation.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/hate-crime/

 

[Ramadhan]

I think this is a good aim - finding that balance; well, that's a lot harder. You have to be able to criticise religion in a free society, it's just where does that criticism become an offensive insult?

Even if they might not like it, I think everyone would be able to accept criticisms if it is based on FACTS, don't you agree?

 

[Scimitar]

I find it very hypocritical that the "freedom of speech" laws contradict directly with "the universal declaration of human rights".

Scimi

 

[Good brother]

Assalam alaikum
No, Justified to attack muslims only
image of the Pope with a yellow stain..............
Hamburg court banned the magazine from publishing the images and from further distributing the issue.

In Germany, a satirical magazine called Titanic, featured in its cover of its July edition, an altered image of the Pope with a yellow stain (color of Vatican flag) on the front (below his belly) of his white robes with the headline, "Hallelujah in the Vatican - the leak is found."

Satirical mag shows Pope with pee stain
Vatican threatens to sue
By QMI Agency


The Vatican has threatened to sue a satirical magazine in Germany over their July edition because it features an altered image of the Pope with a yellow stain on the front of his white robes with the headline, "Hallelujah in the Vatican - the leak is found."
The cover story of the latest issue of Titanic is about the so-called Vatileaks scandal, where internal documents have been made public, including information about the church's tax problems, scandals involving priests and correspondence involving the Pope.

"Press freedom is valued as very important, but from experience we know that religious satire is problematic and often polarizing," says Kremer.
By Wednesday lunchtime, some 40 complaints had been made to the Presserat. "People feel that their religious feeling has been violated and they also believe that the Pope's human dignity is being violated by that picture," Kremer says.

dw.de

 

[Good brother]

I find it very hypocritical that the "freedom of speech" laws contradict directly with "the universal declaration of human rights".

Scimi

why do you think so?

 

[observer]

Even if they might not like it, I think everyone would be able to accept criticisms if it is based on FACTS, don't you agree?

But that's where it's difficult isn't it? Any "fact" that lies outside the teachings of a religion (and especially outside the "holy book" of that religion) is going to be disputed by that religion, surely?

So what do we say? Criticism is only allowed within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised? I wouldn't be comfortable with that.