Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

[observer]

No, Justified to attack muslims only

But that's Germany - a country with very strong religious hatred laws - the film in question was made in the US. The joke in question would have been allowed in the US.
I can't link, but Google the Benetton "Pope gay kiss" advert. That was hugely offensive to Catholics but was not banned everywhere.

 

[Ramadhan]

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?

Sure, it may get disputed by the followers of that religion. And your point is?

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.

Did I even say that criticism is only allowed "within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised"??

you are pulling strawman and red herrings left and right.

 

[observer]

Did I even say that criticism is only allowed "within the confines of the teachings of the religion being criticised"??

you are pulling strawman and red herrings left and right.

So how do we criticise religion only sticking to the "facts" then, as you suggest?

 

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

While the entire world was crying foul over Muslim reactions on the film Netherlands handed a 6 months suspended sentence to a 28 year man for offending the Queen.
Dutch man gets suspended term for insulting queen on Twitter - The Irish Times - Tue, Aug 28, 2012

Teenager arrested for insulting a British athlete at Olympics
Teenage tweeter arrested for insulting Olympian - Times LIVE

And get what this article has been removed from some Brit and US sites that I tried to source it from, wonder why ?

A Muslim being arrested for “offending a few military families”;
BBC News - Azhar Ahmed convicted of offensive Facebook message

I guess 1.6 billion people being offended is no comparison to the above, since they’re Muslim of course.

Poland:

On 5 January 2005, Marxist tabloid publisher Jerzy Urban was sentenced by a Polish court to a fine of 20,000 złoty (about €5000 or US$6,200) for having insulted Pope John Paul II, a visiting head of state.[4]

​

So if you insult the pope you get to pay a fine, but if you insult the prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him you get a freedom of speech award!

On 26–27 January 2005, 28 human rights activists were temporarily detained by the Polish authorities for allegedly insulting Vladimir Putin, a visiting head of state. The activists were released after about 30 hours and only one was actually charged with insulting a foreign head of state.[5]
​

You get into trouble if you insult a merciless dictator, but if you insult a merciful prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him you are a threat to freedom of speech

In October 2006, a Polish man was arrested in Warsaw after expressing his dissatisfaction with the leadership of Lech and Jarosław Kaczyński by passing gas loudly

​

So they cannot accept that one of their own should protest by passing out gas loudly, but Muslims are supposed to bear all insults to their prophet, may peace and blessings be upon him however mean or disgusting they are.

And, now the bastion of free speech, Denmark,

In Denmark, the monarch is protected by the usual libel paragraph (§ 267 of the penal code which allows for up to four months of imprisonment), but §115[7] allows for doubling of the usual punishment when the regent is target of the libel. When a queen consort, queen dowager or the crown prince is the target, the punishment may be increased by 50%. There are no historical records of §115 having ever been used, but in March 2011, Greenpeace activists who unfurled a banner at a dinner at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference were charged under this section.[8] They received minor sentences for other crimes, but were acquitted of the charge relating to the monarch.[9]

​

Anyone see the double standards or am I only the one in the house ? Denmark is the same country that celebrated the cartoonist for his courage and heroism.

In October 2007, a 47-year-old man was fined €400 for, amongst other things, lese-majesty in the Netherlands when he called Queen Beatrix a “*****” and described several sexual acts he would like to perform on her to a police officer
​

Call the prophet, May peace and blessings be upon him all that you want to call, but you cant call the queen anything but good! Freedom of speech!

Norway:

Article 101 states: ‘If any defamation is exercised against the King or the Regent, the guilty is punished with a fine or up to five years of prison
​

Spain:

The Spanish satirical magazine El Jueves was fined for violation of Spain’s lese-majesty laws after publishing an issue with a caricature of the Prince of Asturias and his wife engaging in sexual intercourse on the cover in 2007

​

​

But you are free to draw inappropriate cartoons of the prophet, May peace and blessing be upon him.

Source: IA posters and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lese-majesty

 

[Ramadhan]

So how do we criticise religion only sticking to the "facts" then, as you suggest?

Are you telling me you have never criticized anything based on facts?
Or have you always criticized things based on your imagination and fantasy?

I thought as an atheist you'd be more aggressive in forcing anyone to believe anything based on facts? Or do you pick and choose which one should be based on facts and which are fee for all?

 

[observer]

Perseveranze - the film was made in the US, all of your examples are from other countries? Not sure that you can fairly compare?

 

[observer]

Are you telling me you have never criticized anything based on facts?

I think we're getting our wires crossed here.

You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.

For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.

If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?

 

[Hulk]

So how do we criticise religion only sticking to the "facts" then, as you suggest?

I think what he means is simply intellectual discourse or if not discourse then at least something done in a proper manner. Simply put, done respectfully. I'm sure you agree that mocking and criticizing are two different things. There are plenty of books that criticize Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I think people can respect that.

 

[observer]

I think what he means is simply intellectual discourse or if not discourse then at least something done in a proper manner. Simply put, done respectfully. I'm sure you agree that mocking and criticizing are two different things. There are plenty of books that criticize Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I think people can respect that.

Definitely, I completely agree with this. I think one of the greatest rights of all is the right to agree to disagree.

 

[جوري]

I think we're getting our wires crossed here.

You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.

For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.

If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?

You're getting lost in semantics!
Everything even subjective sciences like psychology have a system that's agreed upon.
Perhaps you simply have no desire to do the homework and prefer a dance around the subject matter but that at the end of the day is your problem not ours and indeed doesn't change or detract from the facts any!

Best,

 

[observer]

You're getting lost in semantics!
Everything even subjective sciences like psychology have a system that's agreed upon.
Perhaps you simply have no desire to do the homework and prefer a dance around the subject matter but that at the end of the day is your problem not ours and indeed doesn't change or detract from the facts any!

Best,

Ok, so how do we agree upon a system to criticise religion? I don't see that the argument is becoming "lost in semantics" at all.

 

[جوري]

Ok, so how do we agree upon a system to criticise religion? I don't see that the argument is becoming "lost in semantics" at all.

Textual integrity, logical consistency, supernatural eloquence, transcendence, guidance, miraculous nature, prophecies, there are loads of ways..
Everything has a system, your being unlearned in that system doesn't make it incorrect or non-factual, it merely means that you're unlearned, when you're unlearned you criticize but not systematically and not in anyway that would cause more than ire to the masses not because what you've to say is worth while, but because have low tolerance for stupidity!


best,

 

[observer]

Textual integrity, logical consistency, supernatural eloquence, transcendence, guidance, miraculous nature, prophecies, there are loads of ways..
Everything has a system, your being unlearned in that system doesn't make it incorrect or non-factual, it merely means that you're unlearned, when you're unlearned you criticize but not systematically and not in anyway that would cause more than ire to the masses not because what you've to say is worth while, but because have low tolerance for stupidity!

So where did you learn how to criticise with "supernatural eloquence" then?

 

[Ramadhan]

I think we're getting our wires crossed here.

You said that criticism has to be based on facts, I want to know how you establish what facts are.

For example - for you, the Quran is the word of God. Fact. For me it is not. Fact.

If we are to argue based on "facts" alone, then whose "fact" do we start from? Mine or yours? Or do we never discuss anything controversial if we cannot establish objective facts?

I am glad you brought a specific example.
I am not insulted at all when you said you believe Al Qur'an is not the word of God, then we can discuss, and as sister منوة الخيال mentioned, we can evaluate and argue whether Al Qur'an is the word of God based on logically, intellectually and/or academically accepted criteria.

I am not sure if you have any limit at all to what is defined as "criticism" of religion. How do you define criticism and thus is allowed and are there anything that should not be okay when discussing faith and religion? Or are you of the opinion that "freedom of speech" cover everything?

 

[جوري]

So where did you learn how to criticise with "supernatural eloquence" then?

Every messenger came upon his people with a miracle that stood out from what was miraculous at the time.. Moses (P) happened upon Egypt where magic was there thing, and he showed them stuff that the best magicians (the pharaohs best priests) of the time knew was not an illusion. Jesus (P) happened upon people who were into medicine and again with his healing the lepers and the blind was something miraculous for its time. Prophet Mohammed happened upon people whose prose and poetry was their bread and butter, they used to put the best of their poetry to hang on Kaaba for prizes and yet no one could bring a sura like the Quran (which is the Quranic challenge) even if it be as short as suret Al'kawthar.
Perhaps I have an advantage is that I read the best they'd to offer and no one can offer what they offered just merely look at the Burdah poem in original tongue and then have a look at the Quran.. there's nothing like it.
Of course you'll come to me with, of what of the non-Arabic speakers.. well everyone who becomes Muslim has to at least learn a little Arabic if to merely complete their prayers, and although it isn't a contributing to accepting Islam for Arabic speakers makeup about 20% of the Muslim world the book on its own is absolutely spellbinding, if you just take it from the matter of the law of combinatorics or the fact that verses are sometimes revealed 20 years apart yet flow in consistency, lyricism, meaning yet there was no computer to file or an assistant boy to sort through the files while it covers every subject from the laws of inheritance to politics, economics, social structure, ideology, jurisprudence and the affairs of the state, all coming from an illiterate man is truly beyond mind blowing!
Other than that if you honestly wish to criticize based on that factor alone (supernatural eloquence) then again I see no other way around it. You should at least start from an acceptable baseline and not simply mouth off because you don't understand and don't like that others are so ensnared.. you should meet people on a level not bathe them in empty rhetoric!

best,

 

[observer]

Every messenger came upon his people with a miracle that stood out from what was miraculous at the time.. Moses (P) happened upon Egypt where magic was there thing, and he showed them stuff that the best magicians (the pharaohs best priests) of the time knew was not an illusion. Jesus (P) happened upon people who were into medicine and again with his healing the lepers and the blind was something miraculous for its time. Prophet Mohammed happened upon people whose prose and poetry was their bread and butter, they used to put the best of their poetry to hang on Kaaba for prizes and yet no one could bring a sura like the Quran (which is the Quranic challenge) even if it be as short as suret Al'kawthar.
Perhaps I have an advantage is that I read the best they'd to offer and no one can offer what they offered just merely look at the Burdah poem in original tongue and then have a look at the Quran.. there's nothing like it.
Of course you'll come to me with, of what of the non-Arabic speakers.. well everyone who becomes Muslim has to at least learn a little Arabic if to merely complete their prayers, and although it isn't a contributing to accepting Islam for Arabic speakers makeup about 20% of the Muslim world the book on its own is absolutely spellbinding, if you just take it from the matter of the law of combinatorics or the fact that verses are sometimes revealed 20 years apart yet flow in consistency, lyricism, meaning yet there was no computer to file or an assistant boy to sort through the files while it covers every subject from the laws of inheritance to politics, economics, social structure, ideology, jurisprudence and the affairs of the state, all coming from an illiterate man is truly beyond mind blowing!
Other than that if you honestly wish to criticize based on that factor alone (supernatural eloquence) then again I see no other way around it. You should at least start from an acceptable baseline and not simply mouth off because you don't understand and don't like that others are so ensnared.. you should meet people on a level not bathe them in empty rhetoric!

best,

Just one thing - I haven't actually criticised anything in this thread - just asked where the limit is, where does acceptable criticism change into unacceptable insult. I certainly haven't "mouthed off" (I don't think) or engaged in "empty rhetoric".

 

[جوري]

Just one thing - I haven't actually criticised anything in this thread - just asked where the limit is, where does acceptable criticism change into unacceptable insult. I certainly haven't "mouthed off" (I don't think) or engaged in "empty rhetoric".

and when I wrote 'you' I didn't mean you observer .. just a general statement of those who do..

best,

 

[observer]

I am not sure if you have any limit at all to what is defined as "criticism" of religion. How do you define criticism and thus is allowed and are there anything that should not be okay when discussing faith and religion? Or are you of the opinion that "freedom of speech" cover everything?

I think that we need limits on offending people, yes, but I don't know where they should go to be honest.

I don't, however, like the idea that we may get to a situation where, prior to publishing something, people are trying to work out if their material will offend if they publish. That doesn't seem healthy to me. I personally believe that no subject should be "taboo" generally.

 

[جوري]

I think that we need limits on offending people, yes, but I don't know where they should go to be honest.

I don't, however, like the idea that we may get to a situation where, prior to publishing something, people are trying to work out if their material will offend if they publish. That doesn't seem healthy to me. I personally believe that no subject should be "taboo" generally.

If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.

 

[observer]

If people stick with the truth and strip it of their personal biases or emotions, I don't think anyone will take offense. People take offense when what they know is depicted in a non-truthful fashion based on personal opinion rather than a fact.

I think that's a pretty good starting point.

It's never going to be black and white though - and things like comedy are always going to push levels of offensiveness.