Is There Such a Thing As Freedom Of Speech?

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

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.

How often does that work? The truth is not always something unanimously accepted. If some speaker speaks out on something the local government doesn't see as truth or want to be seen as truth they crack down on him/her.
That is why the laws of free speech generally protect anything even the ridiculous stuff that is a bit out there because who is to say what is too far out there. It can than easily turn into the rule of majority or the strong. This is how so many countries went of the deep end and what freedom of speech tries to protect from.
Any laws that clearly rule out insulting content could be misused way to easily. Some factions like conservative Christians even get insulted by stuff that is never meant as an insult but simple indifference.
Free speech will remain a really fuzzy thing that allows most anything in general unless there is a clear objective reason not to, like hate preaching, call to hurt, kill, bully and so on.
Some things are legal because outlawing them is considered to require laws that can cause more potential harm than they will do good.

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.

People can only stick to the facts and never include their personal biases or emotions in their work or their art? That world will never exist and should not be required to.

People should be allowed to offend others. I argue that there are people that should be offended for what they believe and what they do, and laws should allow that. Should I be afraid of offending a member of the KKK for insulting their beliefs? Should it be illegal for me to insult L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology? What is the criteria for who is allowed to and who is not allowed to be insulted?

After all, if people want to argue that it should be illegal to insult someone or their beliefs then a good portion of the posters on this forum would be in handcuffs already.

In the United States your right to free speech is protected, but it is a two edged sword. It means that you can say whatever you want about other people and their beliefs, but that they can do the same to you and yours. When you limit such speech you get what you have in other countries, which is intimidation of minority religions and the damming of thoughts and ideas. You get the overreaction to the Holocaust in Austria, the protection of royalty in Europe which was mentioned earlier, and the threat of going to jail or even death on the rumor of insulting Islam in Pakistan by any religious minority.

what's artistic about a guy taking a dump and asking us to sniff it?

To me and you? Nothing. To others it may have merit, though. You want to have artistic merit police? I sure don't.

Again if you stick to the facts of folks killing merely the color of someone's skin or because xenu wants you to confess your tax returns then no one should be offended.

So you are arguing that if someone made a video and posted it on Youtube with the sole intent of offending the KKK that the person should be arrested? How long should their sentence be compared to someone who made a video to insult Muslims?

If the news were merely about passive transmission and not active creation, and concoction then people might consider what you subscribe to as 'freedom of speech' as having some semblance of credibility!

Now you want truth police also? Who exactly would you put in charge of this?

You and I both know that peoples bias will creep into what they do, including the news. If you ran a news show it would be different than if I ran one. They could both be entirely truthful, yet convey different things. We could interpret things differently, so that your "facts" would contradict my "facts". Freedom of Speech, though, allows both of us to present our facts.

Not only that but held without trials too.. just ask folks like Babar .. thank you for proving my point and western hypocrisy!

Are you referring to Babar Ahmad? If so, what has that got at all to do with Freedom of Speech, which is the subject of this thread? I don't see how his case in any way shows any hypocrisy in the US policy towards free speech. That was a complete non sequitur.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

The laws are largely arbitrary

There is a lot of thought that goes into laws and all the possible non intended consequences.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

Just ask folks like Fincklstein, who lost his job for speaking out against Zionist brutalities or others who were thrown in jail for questioning the holocaust or laws those who are fined for speaking out against the almost over night niqaab bans that take place.

It is also difficult to protect whistleblowers but does this mean we should hand the discriminatory employers with yet another tool to legally impose their own prejudice. The laws against holocaust denial are in place only in some countries and are there to force the population to face their history and not evade it.
The laws aren't perfect but making making them more restrictive would have many adverse effects.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

So let's not tread that line as the way we see it is pure hypocrisy on your part. Nothing but pure hypocrisy and selective justice.

You are being unreasonable. How about responding to my arguments? It seems you didn't read my post and are simply responding to some generic free speech defender in your own imagination.
Just naming certain incidents doesn't make your point. First one would need to know the exact reasons why judges ruled to decide whether the laws have been misused or the laws are at fault, or if it was just. Secondly out ruling more would simple make such cases escalate and make our democracies disappear. Interest groups will always have their influence but we should seek to limit them not do the opposite and hand them yet more tools.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

The speech you speak of and promote is nothing short of libel and slander/hate speech that's meant to inflame people and cause mob mentality.. and in fact you shouldn't act so surprised when that is the end result. Others simply don't and won't and shouldn't subscribe to your brand of justice, your brand of democracy nor your brand of freedom!

What is that brand of democracy you speak of? My brand is the standard democratic model that has also been implemented in Lybia when they wrote their new constitution. I am not sure what you understand in democracy. Being allowed to vote your tyrant in place every four years is not what is meant with democracy by most people. Minority rights are important too.
China justifies most of their censorship with protecting the peace. So did the Germans in the 3rd Reich. Read Mein Kampf.
Mob mentality is cause by populism combined with angry people that want to blame someone. Sure people can be inflamed by speech that is legally protected but that is also what democracy is. Activism and demonstrations are an important part of it. There are limitations against hate speech. Against deliberately inflaming a mob to burn down mosques, or bully a certain minority.

Demanding respect is not something one can sue for. It is just about impossible for most people to take seriously L. Ron Hubbard. What is holy to one sounds ridiculous to the other. Mocking is also a form of questioning and reminding in a less serious fashion. The cabarett that mocks the Catholics priest and the abuse scandal also make sure those issues aren't forgotten and ignored. Should it be forbidden to mock the pope because some adore him. My father is Catholic yet thinks very little of the Vatican.

I also think Muslims would be seriously impeded by such laws, since effectively the gay people could sue everyone that simple articulates his own religions positions on an issue. Or women that feel insulted by patriarchic ideologies.

The only time free speech should be overridden is for serious clearly destructive ideas like hate preaching inciting violence. For example in Germany members of a nationalist ultra right party want to publicly stage the content of this movie, to defend free speech as they say. Because of quite obvious consequences and the questionable message this can be forbidden.
You do need a permit for demonstrations but generally they are not allowed to deny it to you.

Personally I don't see how you imagine there to be an alternative to the laws in place that do not discriminate against certain believes yet prohibits an expression of opinion like this movie.
I say there are place where laws a good and need and there are some where they are counter productive or impossible. In those cases one needs other instruments to deal with problems, effectively the citizens need to learn to deal with it. For example boycotting a company that mistreats employees while still acting within the legal boundaries.

format_quote Originally Posted by dusk

My brand is the standard democratic model that has also been implemented in Lybia when they wrote their new constitution. I am not sure what you understand in democracy. Being allowed to vote your tyrant in place every four years is not what is meant with democracy by most people. Minority rights are important too.

Before I respond to any of this what country do you live in?

format_quote Originally Posted by Aprender

Before I respond to any of this what country do you live in?

Austria & Germany both to a degree.

I think part of the problem is that we are talking about a rule that is enforced differently in different parts of the West. You cannot speak of "The West" as a unified thing on the subject. To say that the "The West" is hypocritical by bringing up an example in one country that is not the case in most, if not any other, is disingenuous. The laws in Austria are different from Israel is different from the United States.

Sure I do- I minored in Art History in undergrad. so why not? This might come as a shock to you but alot of 'Art'/garbage gets rejected!

The fact that you would entertain the idea of the government deciding what is art and what isn't only serves to show the great divide in our opinions. Your version would allow people to make completely subjective decisions on what is and what is not allowed. You argue for facts, then argue that your opinion should be the deciding factor. It is exactly that attitude that permits authoritarian states to not exist but flourish.

As to who would put me or anyone in charge- a little innate God given common sense goes a long way - the same way any normal person of reason can go to the market and pick out fresh fruits from rotten ones.

But you and I disagree fundamentally on many things. You call some things common sense which I call ludicrous. Wouldn't common sense make want to keep you away from any kind of authority over me? And what exactly would you do to something that someone spent a lot of time creating and you did not consider art? Please tell me what it would be and how it would make society better.

Who decides those in a 'free democratic' society? certainly isn't we the people is it- if they're the ones who make them!

Yes, but the laws should be written so that it cannot become a tyranny of the majority. In my opinion that means the minority, whether it be based on race or religion or any other thing, has the right to speak their mind freely without fear of persecution and laws need to be in place to keep it that way.

What would they sue for exactly?

Off the top of my head... calling for their death?

And you'd call the video and similar what? it isn't inciting hate?

It is inciting hatred of Mohammed, and ergo Islam. I do not see it inciting people to commit acts of violence against Muslims which is what he was talking about.

If you want to start arguing that people should not make videos inciting hatred at all then you would have to ban videos made to incite hatred against the US government, Israel, and many other things that you may not like. In that case Youtube would have to take down a whole lot more videos.

Try putting on a different hat and see how far that so-called freedom takes you.

The latest Pew polls show that 55% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims while only 35% have a favorable view of Atheists. On average they like you better than me, so I am aware of how far it takes me.

I also know that the last two businesses that I consulted on and helped open I was working with Muslim owners. The last group were spending all their extra money trying to get the rest of their family into the United States because they feel they would have much better lives here than there and both groups made it clear they were happy in the US. I also know that since 2001 over 600 Mosques have opened in the United States and I know that there are over 100,000 Muslims moving to the United States every year.

Since you want to talk facts, the facts are that the freedoms allowed in the United States, both social and economic, are much desired by Muslims. If the US were the hell hole for Muslims that you like to infer then the immigration would be away, not into, the country.

format_quote Originally Posted by titus

The latest Pew polls show that 55% of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims while only 35% have a favorable view of Atheists.

I find that VERY hard to believe. What was the sample size? 20 people? The target audience for that poll? What was the margin of error? What exactly is "favorable"? I would like to see the questions asked in that poll. I'll believe that when Muslim women who wear the hijab can walk out of their houses in America without fear of being verbally attacked and harassed. And when mothers on public trains don't move their children away from a Muslim woman because she thinks her very presence on the train is going to somehow harm her child. Or when a Muslim woman can walk on a university campus without wondering if everyone is staring and laughing at her. Or when a Muslim woman can walk into a place of employment with her hijab on and get the job without being dismissed for simply being a Muslim.

Or on 9/11 anniversaries, when you can walk out of your home as a Muslim without every other Joe, Dick and Jane on the street not looking at you with burning hatred in their eyes. Or when Muslim children in American classrooms don't have all of their classmates looking at them like they single handedly carried out the events on that tragic day.

It's interesting to me the way people like you tend to quote stats and statistics but don't think about how those actually apply to reality. Try to look at it from perspective for a moment and see if that makes any sense to you. Though I was never an atheist, before I came to Islam I did hang out with the atheist crowd and life was a whole lot easier for me back then than it is now. I was viewed more favorably.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

You're delusional if you think that you've any freedom in any western society. You're free only to express one brand of ideology no more no less.

That is simply wrong there are many ideologies competing and constantly fighting over this and that. In a cosmopolitan society there are some rules to ensure a peaceful free life for everyone. That doesn't mean everybody can do whatever they want. You cannot beat your children no matter what you claim your religion says. There are commonly agreed values that are imposed. Like in many situations womens rights collide with old patriarchic traditional religious interpretations and it then has to be decided what is more important. In the US there is a huge debate about those.

I just don't view things as pessimistic as you.

format_quote Originally Posted by منوة الخيال

I have no hopes of laws being put in place or any good change being made at all.

Great. I do trust our laws. I live in a very safe, very friendly country with many helpful people and our crime rate is so low that I see a police car in my town actually moving 3 times a year. We must be doing something right here.
I would prefer it some of the stupid tabloid newspaper were forbidden and people actually valued journalism but there is no chance of that ever happening.
If you have no hopes I am sorry but I think we are not so far on the wrong track.
There are some problems that aren't properly tackled. Like the age distribution where the elderly have more votes and thus certain legislation is problematic. It sucks that someone that reads two lines in a tabloid gets a vote with the same weight as someone that actually tries to form an informed opinion.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. -Churchill

I certainly don't want a theocracy, I would be more inclined to go to China with their hegemonial totalitarianism.
Democracy has a value and there are still ways to improve it. The pirate internet parties do promote a new more active involvement in politicial decision making of the public and more transparency. Democracy has its costs. It is way more inefficient and slow and it demands both educated and active participation to work. It doesn't come for free.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin

Can all we agree that freedom of speech, like all other freedoms, must be exercised responsibly?

Rights can be abused, and that's the crux of the discussion here.

I would agree.
I tried to make a case that some forms of it can not responsibly be criminalized and therefore remain legal unless of course you change the type of government. The people need to learn to deal with it in some productive fashion.


I can only say how the demonstrations are seen in much of the so called west and especially the liberal circles. It seems as if the internet connect countries and cultures that have never been exposed to any such criticism or mockery. Now they haven't learned to simply stand above such low trifling insults. One judges the content and the source in combination. If a high ranking politician or well educated professor insults someone or some people, people are upset and demand apologies. If some lowlife ultra rants about some nonsense, that is just ignored as everybody would feel like lowering oneself to that level by acknowledging even listening to it. Mad people cannot get reasoned with so there is no point trying.
Now I read somewhere that islamist blogs promoted this movie as if it was some kind of big thing in the US. In that case I could understand the people better but I would question why cares to set that straight. We got populists too but we don't respect them.
To sum it up it looks more like the people only sought to find some reason to go nuts and release all their anger, in which case sympathy is not exactly running high. If they only dug up some movie from the depths of the trash web to have some reason for inciting unrest it is difficult to feel sympathy.
The media has its sensationalism we all know but there was really only one article about Lybians demonstrating that they condone the murder of the US ambassador who was very popular in Lybia as he very early supported the uprising. It looked as if nobody cared what kind of a picture this sends to the rest of the world or that those that did are a weak minority or passive. Which I assume is the case. Not that they have to care but if they want to be heard they also need to be perceived as rational and respectful.
The noise makers we have are now calling for more insulting material for the sole purpose of toughening up this angry population. A sort of education tool so Muslims get to be as toughened as the Christians are. One such example is this

A populist group in Germany wants to publicly show the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims," which is stoking a violent backlash across the Muslim world. Officials are reviewing whether they could ban the action, sparking a delicate debate over free speech and public order.

I can understand that the foreign policy of the US and EU is not being viewed positively, but I am really not sure if this whole issue is by the people that actually live there more about general resentments as in a political statement that has been sparked or primarily about the religious feelings. It it is really near impossible to extract that out of the news media.
To put it differently is it more about respect for Islam or respect for Muslims as people that don't want to be treated as they have been in the recent past. Like the Greek that demonstrate against Germany because they think austerity is bleeding them dry.

The demonstrations to display accusation against the West but seemingly not just as a proxy. No European and 99% of Americans feel responsible for the movie so people read the news paper and ask what do these people want.

Freedom of Speech has it's limits in every society.