Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

[Aprender]

Other than isolated incidents can you show me any reason why hijab women should be afraid?

If an event is isolated, then there would not be more than one of it. Muslims don't live in just one place. So if a woman wearing a hijab is attacked in Colorado or Germany it makes no difference the attack still happened. There is generally a negative attitude against Muslims that exists throughout the world. Since you wrote "other than isolated incidents", because this indicates that you recognize that there are some, you must know that the anti-Islamic sentiment exists out there. Which is why I'm confused as to why you're confused that Muslims, hijabis more so, are concerned about being next?

The question should be why does the media have to make documentaries like this one to examine the relationship between what the media puts out there about a group of people and how that shapes the way the general public thinks about a group they are not a part of? Especially if we're viewed so "favorably"?

[video=vimeo;38759319]http://vimeo.com/38759319[/video]

Could it be because my country is at war in the Middle East against Muslims? Could it be because the media tends to brush all of Islam under one scope of extremism? Pseudo intellects taking things out of context and television presenting Muslims as irrational barbarians that want to chop this and kill the infidel that? Or that networks like TLC recognize the negative presentation of Muslims in the media and had to make a reality TV show about Muslims going against Islamic teachings drinking, dancing, opening bars and dressing provocatively just to show that we're "normal humans"? Which ended up getting cancelled because people felt it was "brainwashing Americans into thinking Muslims are good" and it lost its advertising? Just take a look at some of the recent people who have joined this forum after the protests in Egypt that sparked this freedom of speech debate. They came here with the same concerns that we want to "take over" and "impose Shariah law on them" and that we'll beat their women and oppress them and they won't have their "freedom of speech" and thought anymore with the Muslims around.

I think the answer is clear. I don't think it's necessarily "fear" in each case but I do think that most Muslims don't expect to be treated fairly in this life because of the miseducation about Islam and Muslims in general.

That's where it comes from.

 

[Ramadhan]

Something that offends in one society may not offend in another. This is the point Muslims have missed. We can't make a law in New Zealand to satisfy Muslims in Yemen!
.

So you don't think there's no muslim in New Zealand, California, etc?

Which rock have you been living under?

 

[dusk]

Theocracy is the incorrect term when it comes to Sharia

I used the wrong term, though from my remaining arguments one could have concluded that I did argue against in any clerical system and promote secularism.
My gripe is with any rule that ends up discriminating and limiting the freedom of people that harm no one only because they disagree on some issues.

 

[dusk]

I know some Germanies.

They can´t talk about Nazims at all.

They shame it too much.

We spend about 3 years reading the wave and everything up and down the WW2. All the preceding events how it could come this far. What Hitler, Göbbels did want, write, say.
When I was in the US some people thought that we would think Nazi jokes offensive. We know more Nazi jokes than anybody else. There are the holocaust denial laws for the sole purpose of making it obligatory to face history and not ignore but learn from it.
I do live in a city with many buildings that have been designed by Nazis and built by exploiting prisoners of war. From an architectural perspective they did a great job but that doesn't justify anything. Less than 20km for my home is one of the biggest major concentration camps and every school child visits a KZ at least once and takes a look at a gas chamber.

I don't really know what it adds to the discussion and sure Germans are still ashamed of the history because we face it and not ignore it. It was one of the best educated societies of the time and it still ended up the way it did. There is a lot to learn from that history.
That doesn't mean all are model citizens but Germans in majority do talk more about nationalsocialism and past crimes than any other country like Japan, the US or Britain. In our own politics it is still something that comes up often.

I don't think we should be proud of it and talk about it. Some shame humbles and taking responsibility and understanding the factors involved to recognize similar developments in time is the right course of action. I wish propaganda and populism was a mandatory school subject. The way it is it depends on how good a history, philosophy, german teacher one has.

 

[جوري]

I have no doubt you don't understand what I mean. Please, grab a book,

I am sure this is your inner child throwing back at me what I requested of you after that embarrassing tirade..

best,

 

[جوري]

it obligatory to face history and not ignore but learn from it.

Indeed all those Zionists have learned something from it and exercising Nazism Aka Zionism quite well on Palestinians.
The laws are made to be milked. So they can have a carte blanche to do as they please to another nation and then hand over their trump card whenever someone says what the hell do you think you're doing!

best,

 

[observer]

This contradicts your previous statement.

Absolutely no contradiction - I think that no issue should be taboo, we need some limits on where we go with those issues, I don't know where those limits are. Where is the contradiction there?

 

[IslamicRevival]

Freedom of speech, on the face of it is a lie and an oxymoron as it doesn't mean what is says on the tin. Its an expression open to abuse thus it should be banished and trashed in the bins of history.

 

[~Zaria~]

​

 

[جوري]

Yeah I am trying to explain in as simplistic terms as possible to the other fellow but they want to put their fingers in their ears and blinders on their eyes.. They can do no wrong..
Sob7an Allah!

 

[~Zaria~]

Yeah I am trying to explain in as simplistic terms as possible to the other fellow but they want to put their fingers in their ears and blinders on their eyes.. They can do no wrong..
Sob7an Allah!

Lol, u guys spend too much time here.
I honestly cant keep up with these threads : )

One needs to consider the audience every now and then.....pictures may have more of an impact than 1000s of words ever can.

 

[GuestFellow]

Yes there is freedom of speech. Most of the time people can say whatever they want. Using freedom of speech to incite violence is not allowed. Client confidentiality is another limit. People working within national security or intelligence services are not allowed to disclose any sensitive material.

You get cases where it is difficult to draw the line between freedom of speech and hate speech. These cases are treated on an individual basis.

 

[Ramadhan]

Absolutely no contradiction - I think that no issue should be taboo, we need some limits on where we go with those issues, I don't know where those limits are. Where is the contradiction there?

You are still being abstract.

Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?

And who draws these limits?

Atheists? muslims? christians?

 

[Logikon]

Yes that is true.

Something that offends in one society may not offend in another.

This is the point Muslims have missed. We can't make a law in New Zealand to satisfy Muslims in Yemen!

Any comment?

 

[جوري]

Any comment?

There's not much to comment on. If you're eating dung out of the toilet it would be offensive in any culture!

best,

 

[GuestFellow]

You are still being abstract.

Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?

And who draws these limits?

Atheists? muslims? christians?

It is not easy to draw these limits.

First, which country are you referring to? This determine who decides what constitutes as freedom of speech.

If your referring from an international perspective, then it is impracticable to govern freedom of speech and to enforce it...unless countries are part of an organisation like the European Union.

 

[dusk]

You are still being abstract.

Please give examples on what can be allowed in discussions and what should not be allowed?

And who draws these limits?

Atheists? muslims? christians?

I don't know about discussions but in the public space in general.
Nobody can draw these limits.
In no democracy is there any protection against being offended. Nobody has to respect you or your believes.
Because there is simply no way to make a fair law. Would you open committees that decide what is offensive and what not? These would just be the extending arm of the government used and misused by some dominating religion or ideology. The democratic system would break down.

Some of the examples of non existent free speech given by Zaria are ignorant. The military is a different topic. As it is with some private companies when you sign a NDA or any similar contract. It is a voluntary thing to enter the private companies and even in countries with mandatory military service only some positions require to sign certain secrecy level contracts, which if not signed would bar one from the position. Once signed you entered a contract which you have to abide by. It is as simple as that.
Assange was never convicted or accused of any violation of freedom of speech. The rape allegations in sweden may be true or not. If some law is sometimes misused or if there are corrupt politicians does not mean the philosophy or law is bad. Just because some police men don't behave well doesn't mean we should forget about having a police force and let anarchy rule or bring in the military.
The pussy riot example is a violation of freedom of speech but Russia is also only a democracy in name. That is about the most ridiculous example of the few.

The law protects religious communities it does not protect god or any religious feelings. Freedom of speech protects opinions even many which seem stupid, dumb and offensive. This protects all religions and beliefs equally. Any other system would deteriorate into deterring some opinions and strengthening others to achieve certain goals. Just look to Russia.
In Germany the magazine Titanic did win in courts concerning their picture which looked like an incontinent pope saying on the headline "The leak is found". Not very respectful but legal.

Therefore in a democracy it is as the Australian Stephen Hughes says.
You want to live in a democracy but you never want to be offended? You are an i****.

This things can not be enforced by law and thus have to be handles by the people amongst themselves outside of courts. Which may include protesting (peacefully if possible), ignoring, not attending certain events or watching some comedians if one doesn't like their jokes.
The scientology guy cannot demand respect for believing in his alien story and neither can a Muslim or Catholic. They can ask for it and usually in 99% of cases they get it. One doesn't have to buy a Magazin that doesn't respect your church. They aren't telling anybody to do anything mean to Catholics they only don't take the position of the Pope very seriously which even among Catholics a lot fewer people do than some might think. The Pope is more popular in latin america than in middle/north Europe.

ad islamophobic tendencies
If people would not perceive the majority of Muslims as being like some minority our Christian nutjobs, there would be less hostility. The main arguments of the right populists are all about Muslims not accepting or due to their religion being able to accept the basic tenants of our democratic system. If true there is no hope and this will eventually turn out bad, if not that argument just has to be taken away and things will turn out just fine; people just have to get to know each other.
The anti-Muslim sentiment comes mainly from three groups.

• The extreme right Christians who think they still have their illusion of a Christian country and they need to defend it.
• The secularist that think it is so nice that we finally live in a tolerant country where even the Christians don't have any special privileges anymore and now there is a new reactionary force, which cannot be allowed to turn back time again. Those are primarily against fundamentalist of all sorts and religions.
• Third there are the people that are generally against everything foreign, that just need the current easiest scapegoat on whom they can blame all their own misery and what not. Nobody can argue with people that have no reason. One can only work to make this group as small and insignificant as possible.

The only way to go up against those resentments is to fight the extremists on both sides and do not pay attention to them once they are small enough. They will never completely disappear. That is why some part any member of a democratic society needs to suck up. Even Jews in Germany. Anti-semitism is not illegal only certain acts of vandalism, inciting violence and denial of what happend in the KZs.

There's not much to comment on. If you're eating dung out of the toilet it would be offensive in any culture!

Why would that be offensive? If you like it go ahead. Make a movie like the jackass guys doing such stuff, I am sure many people find it funny.

 

[جوري]

Why would that be offensive? If you like it go ahead. Make a movie like the jackass guys doing such stuff, I am sure many people find it funny.

Apparently you're the one who likes it. We're not the ones advocating for a no baseline on offense under some delusion that it is 'democratic'. If anyone likes the taste, odor and gets off it, it would be the ones fighting for it, not those disgusted by it --i.e (normal people).

best,

 

[Ramadhan]

I don't know about discussions but in the public space in general.
Nobody can draw these limits.

I still don't get it.

You said there are limits, but nobody can draw these limits.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[جوري]

They tighten or broaden the confidence interval based on how the dialogue evolves & always to their advantage it is just a matter of wording not principal-Never!. In the end it doesn't really matter how you slice it, you'll end up with exactly what they want to dish you.