Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

Mustafa2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...


One thing people have to realize about America is that we do NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. This is a representative republic. The people vote in people who then make the decisions. A democracy would in theory be a country where the people voted on every single issue. None such place exists and never will. I wish people would stop using the word because it spreads a great deal of confusion.

Free speech is always limited here. You cannot talk about overthrowing the government, that is a crime. Precisely why we will never get our country back from the money wh$res who stole it from us.
 
ripamaru said:
One thing people have to realize about America is that we do NOT HAVE A DEMOCRACY. This is a representative republic.
Click to expand...
This is plain wrong. Not only does the definition of democracy include 'representative democracies', they are by far the majority of examples in history. You are talking about 'direct democracies'. The first Greek democracy was a direct democracy - all citizens were entitled to vote directly on individual issues (their definition of citizen however excluded women, slaves and poorer freemen).

As a matter of fact, as of very recently, technology has just made direct democracy feasible again for the first time in thousands of years - because we could all vote electronically.

You can choose to view that as a good or a bad thing. I think it's the wrong option.
 
Free speech is alwrays limited here. You cannot talk about overthowing the government, that is a crime.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You can talk about it all you want. You just cannot actually make specific plans to do it.

It's not just Insulting religion, it was insulting Muhammed (peace be upon him). And wheter or not you believe that he actually was a prophet, he was in any way also a human being, and thus it's defenitly still defamation.
Click to expand...

There are many issues with this statement.

Insults are not illegal anywhere that I am aware of, and certainly not to people that are no longer alive. And if you are going to argue laws then we really need to be specific about which place we are speaking of since "The West" is way too general. The equivalent would be someone starting a thread about stupid "Muslim" laws and picking and choosing laws from the many Muslim majority nations (i.e. Saudi driving laws concerning women).

These laws, at least here in the US where I live and am familiar, do not discriminate against Muslims regardless of how many here feel. You can easily find films online that are offensive to any religion you want and to people who are considered prophets of those religions (look at John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard as great examples). One big difference, though, is that you won't see Mormons rioting and committing acts of violence whenever John Smith is insulted. Those that get so upset with these cartoons and films need to look for the internal issues in their society I believe, not the external ones.
 
There are many issues with this statement.
Insults are not illegal anywhere that I am aware of,
Click to expand...
I already gave you a list on wiki with all the countries and there laws. Almost every country has laws against defamation and slander. If you're still unware of that despite my help, there's not much more I can do for you in that respect.


and certainly not to people that are no longer alive.
Click to expand...
Yeah so I can slander a person in a newspaper but I can do so for his death mother? Don't be silly. Being death does not deprive a person of it's humanity and its right to respect! Which in most people's opinion is still far more important then the right to voice your opinion.

And if you are going to argue laws then we really need to be specific about which place we are speaking of since "The West" is way too general.
Click to expand...
Every western country has one limitatio nor another on freedom of speech due to slander and defamtion. Every single one.


These laws, at least here in the US where I live and am familiar, do not discriminate against Muslims regardless of how many here feel. You can easily find films online that are offensive to any religion you want and to people who are considered prophets of those religions (look at John Smith and L. Ron Hubbard as great examples). One big difference, though, is that you won't see Mormons rioting and committing acts of violence whenever John Smith is insulted. Those that get so upset with these cartoons and films need to look for the internal issues in their society I believe, not the external ones.
Click to expand...
Lol you're saying that like America is the model for the West. Here in Europe where I live people are looking down on the many flaws in US law and the hypocracy rising from it. But that's beside the issue, because like I said even in the states there is a limit to what you can or can't say. Your argument here is, many people do it, so you see it is allowed afterall? Yeah nice logic there...
 
Yeah so I can slander a person in a newspaper but I can do so for his death mother? Don't be silly. Being death does not deprive a person of it's humanity and its right to respect! Which in most people's opinion is still far more important then the right to voice your opinion.
Click to expand...

I was speaking about the legal ramifications, specifically in the United States. There are no laws against defaming someone who is deceased.

Every western country has one limitatio nor another on freedom of speech due to slander and defamtion. Every single one.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they are not all the same. Only if the law is the same in every Western nation can you honestly call it a "Western" law.

Lol you're saying that like America is the model for the West. Here in Europe where I live people are looking down on the many flaws in US law and the hypocracy rising from it. But that's beside the issue, because like I said even in the states there is a limit to what you can or can't say. Your argument here is, many people do it, so you see it is allowed afterall? Yeah nice logic there...
Click to expand...

I am not sure you read my statement. If you did then you certainly read more into that what I said. I never said it was the model for the West. Please don't create straw men to argue about.

I do claim that I see no hypocrisy when it comes to the laws of the United States and religion, specifically concerning the film and cartoons that upset so many Muslims. If you believe that there is some hypocrisy when it comes to that then please enlighten me on those laws and how they are being enforced because I am not aware of them.
 
was speaking about the legal ramifications, specifically in the United States. There are no laws against defaming someone who is deceased.
Click to expand...
Can I take from this, that you agree that it is unethical to libel and defame the death; even though there is no legal ground in US common law against it? And if so, doesn't that answer your question here:
I do claim that I see no hypocrisy when it comes to the laws of the United States and religion,
specifically concerning the film and cartoons that upset so many Muslims. If you believe that there is some hypocrisy when it comes to that then please enlighten me on those laws and how they are being enforced because I am not aware of them.
Click to expand...
As for your other point:
Yes, but they are not all the same. Only if the law is the same in every Western nation can you honestly call it a "Western" law.
Click to expand...
I don't think I said "western law", but rather I said Most western laws. I could be mistaken and might have slipped up by generalising somewhere, I'm actually to lazy to go back and check. But anayway I think the initial points I made when first contributing to this thread still stand despite you trying to go trough them with a fine-tooth comb. Namely:
1. Yes there is freedom of speech and that's a good thing.
2. But there are some limits, and that's a good thing too.
 
Last edited:
I think we are close to being on the same page. I think where we differ is on what those laws should be.

My beliefs are pretty close to what the US has in effect at the moment, and those laws allow gives them a lot of freedom, including the freedom to insult someone elses beliefs no matter how dear they claim them to be.
 
Shaikh Hamza Yusuf Hansen speaking on Freedom of Speech, very interesting.


Scimi
 
Mustafa2012 said:
FollowerOfChrist said:
I am fully aware of which country it happened in. But it remains to be seen.

In theory he wouldn't have, but going by the way the public react to anything said by Muslims nowadays, there's a good chance he would have been arrested even in America.
Click to expand...


Yeah, right. If there's such a double standard towards Muslim in America, why hasn't Ahmadinejad been arrested? I mean, he's openly expressed that he feels on 9/11 was an inside job. He's threatened to attack USA military bases if Israel tried to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. He's been to the USA SERVERAL times for interviews. He hasn't been arrested. So what double
standards are you talking about?

There's been shows aired on tv and books that have been written that Christians consider offensive. For the most part, you don't see Christians killing people over it. There's nothing morally justified about killing people over offensive movies. Get the hell over it.
Click to expand...
 
FollowerOfChrist said:
He's been to the USA SERVERAL times for interviews. He hasn't been arrested. So what double
standards are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Simple because they love him here- in fact they're all bed fellows and share the same agenda:
51x04MNpENL_BO2204203200_PIsitbstickerar-1.jpg


why are you so under read?

best,
 
There's been shows aired on tv and books that have been written that Christians consider offensive. For the most part, you don't see Christians killing people over it. There's nothing morally justified about killing people over offensive movies. Get the hell over it.
Click to expand...

Ummm wot if I made an offensive movie about ur mom? How abt I publicly talked about her sxual organs?
Did you find the mere suggestion offensive? Might you suddenly become furious and flip?
Well....God and His messenger mean more to us than our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children.
If you have no remnant of dignity or honour, please don't feel jealous because we do. The dignity and honour of a Muslim is more valuable than his blood. (fitnah is greater than killing).
But how would you understand that when you live in a land where a man is expected to remain calm and "civilized" while his wife or mother or sister is *****(choose ur own term). And would even get arrested for assault if he spat on the deserver of death.
Or hey how's abts the uk where they go on abt honour killings while everyone knows wot happened to Diana?

Do NOT try to tell us Muslims about anger or dignity, we think differently from you, you're taliking to people who's whole tribes make the pledge of death to defend the honour of one child if he's abused, and God and His Messenger are greater.

accept it....get the hell over it.
 
Last edited:
Independent said:
This is plain wrong. Not only does the definition of democracy include 'representative democracies', they are by far the majority of examples in history. You are talking about 'direct democracies'. The first Greek democracy was a direct democracy - all citizens were entitled to vote directly on individual issues (their definition of citizen however excluded women, slaves and poorer freemen).

As a matter of fact, as of very recently, technology has just made direct democracy feasible again for the first time in thousands of years - because we could all vote electronically.

You can choose to view that as a good or a bad thing. I think it's the wrong option.
Click to expand...

The problem with democracy is that it is mob rule. And with the growing power of media, direct democracy becomes a very dangerous idea. You need protection for minorities. As the saying goes, direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
 
I think it is important to point out here that offending somebody doesn't always amount to slander or defamation. For one thing, the statement must be false. For another, it must cause harm, as a reasonable person would measure harm. Parody is rarely defamation, for example. Shows like Jon Stewart's insult people all the time, but are not defamatory. Political satirists lampoon politicians all the time, with political cartoons. But somehow when a cartoon gets done depicting a religious prophet, it sends people into fits of violence.... and then when others, both of, and shockingly not of that religion, complain about the cartoon more than the violence.... I see a major problem there.
 
Pygoscelis said:
Shows like Jon Stewart's insult people all the time, but are not defamatory. Political satirists lampoon politicians all the time, with political cartoons.
Click to expand...

I understand that.
But I always struggle with why somebody should wish to say or do something which they know will cause offense to other people. No matter how valid the point they are trying to make is - can't they find a less offensive way of making it?

(Perhaps my genetic lack of humour or showing through, but I have never understood that kind of use of comedy ...)
 
Is an attack on a mosque causing 1.5 million dollar sufficient as harm? The perpetrator did say because of what he watched on Fox News!
There's no funny satire- there's just irresponsible calculating buffoons who look to make their money from what sells!
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top