Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 5:37:35 PM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
Vincent......I think that JSM was spot on and is talkng about what many of us understand as hate speech.

For those interested, here is an interesting article I read some time back, which tries to distinguish between "free speech and hate speech"

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/03/uk-free-speech-vs-us-free-speech-more-speech-not-always-the-solution/

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 5:52:53 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Vincent......I think that JSM was spot on and is talkng about what many of us understand as hate speech.

For those interested, here is an interesting article I read some time back, which tries to distinguish between "free speech and hate speech"

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/03/uk-free-speech-vs-us-free-speech-more-speech-not-always-the-solution/


Thanks, PS. It is interesting and surpising to note that Justice Alito offered dissent in the verdict that favored the Westboro Baptist Church.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 6:31:34 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Well as someone who lives in the U.S., I don't find Americans particularly welcoming of people of non-Christian or non-Jewish background. This is still very much a Judeo-Christian country, and there is a lot of misunderstanding and misperception about religions outside of the Abrahamic religions even here. I would not translate the free speech laws that we have here as creating greater open-mindedness about other religions. I speak as someone who knows.




I haven't lived in Manhattan since I was a child, but I can't say I found many in the city all that welcoming of somebody from the other side of the country, either. It just ain't a friendly place, in my experience. I hope you'll have the opportunity to get a broader perspective on us.


(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 7:36:20 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Hate speech isn't always easy to define
in a democracy. But ridicule, satire
and criticism is covered by free speech.


Good point. Yes. But what of slanderous comments? Is there a line? Or is speech totally unfettered?

(in reply to Winterapple)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 7:47:01 PM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

Well, nobody is going around making a film on Hosea marrying a whore or Jesus probably being bi but mostly homosexual and hanging with a whore, everybody has him at immaculate conception and didnt fuck. Sort of solves the sex problem if he is a ken doll.


There is a scene in Katzantzakis' book (not the film, I think) The Last Temptation of Christ in which Jesus is waiting his turn in a mud hut for a whack at Mary Magdalene, portrayed as a whore. I don't recall if he got laid. I can't swear that was even his intent; I do recall it was a sweaty scene. Or maybe I was sweaty . . . lol!

< Message edited by vincentML -- 9/18/2012 7:49:05 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 7:56:03 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

For those interested, here is an interesting article I read some time back, which tries to distinguish between "free speech and hate speech"

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/03/uk-free-speech-vs-us-free-speech-more-speech-not-always-the-solution/



Thanks for the link, Polite. Interesting read. I still think you are wrong. Free speech is the easist way going to spot the assholes, and the answer to free speech used badly, is more speech.

Your link did contain an admission worth highlighting which we rarely see on this side of the water, right in the opening paragraph. Lefties here mostly maintain a big facade, about their committment to free speech.

quote:


The boundary between legitimate expression and hate speech in the UK represents the battle between rights and responsibilities and it has been tested recently. By way of contrast, in the US the war has, by and large, been won by the right.



The article isn't that old, yet the author pretends that the Westboro Baptist fucktards have not been dealt with by exactly the method he claims cannot be trusted. If they show up, so do hundreds of counter-protesters, and that becomes the story, if they are given the free publicity they crave at all. (I think we could further enhance the effect by protecting the protesters a litte further, mandating a $50 fine, should a counter-protester punch one of them in the nose, but that's just me.)

When speech in the United States is prosecuted, and it happens all the time, it is because a crime resulted from it. Generally, these cases are filed under, "conspiracy." Charles Manson will point out that he never killed anybody, yet his speech earned him a death sentence. Inciting a riot will get you into court. Disrupting an event will get your ass escorted to the street. Sharing your beliefs, no matter how rotten those beliefs may be? No.


(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 9:29:46 PM   
DaNewAgeViking


Posts: 1009
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
The interesting thing about this incident is that Egypt has filed charges against the film producers and that Florida hatemonger 'reverend' - said charges carrying the death penalty. This is going to make a fine hash of things, since the USA can't turn them over on free speech grounds, yet refusing to do so will cause a major stink in the Middle East, and give more fodder to the Radicals.

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 9:48:37 PM   
TheHeretic


Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline
The charges against Egyptian nationals might legimately keep them from ever going home for a funeral or something, but I think Egypt should get publicly slapped for trying to charge Jones with anything.


(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 10:14:45 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

The interesting thing about this incident is that Egypt has filed charges against the film producers and that Florida hatemonger 'reverend' - said charges carrying the death penalty. This is going to make a fine hash of things, since the USA can't turn them over on free speech grounds, yet refusing to do so will cause a major stink in the Middle East, and give more fodder to the Radicals..

Another interesting aspect is revealed if we compare these cases to the treatment of Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and Bradley Manning, Assange's alleged informant. Assange has been granted political asylum status by the Ecuadorian Govt to protect him from the long arm of the US 'justice' system.

Assange's 'crime' is that he published c250, 000 documents, most of which were internal US communications and classified as secret. No one has been harmed or met with violence as a result of Assange's actions. The question of 'hate speech' doesn't arise here. Assange was doing his job as a journalist by bringing to public attention some documents that the US Govt, in its wisdom, preferred to keep under wraps. There is no evidence to suggest that US national security has been seriously compromised by Assange's actions.

There are good grounds for believing that the US intends to bring him to trial in the USA for his actions. Already, Assange's alleged contact, Bradley Manning is being kept in conditions that don't fall short of torture while he awaits his trial for his whistle blowing.

Am I alone in seeing a double standard operating here?

_____________________________



(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 11:15:09 PM   
Winterapple


Posts: 1343
Joined: 8/19/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Hate speech isn't always easy to define
in a democracy. But ridicule, satire
and criticism is covered by free speech.


Good point. Yes. But what of slanderous comments? Is there a line? Or is speech totally unfettered?

It's my understanding that slander
and liable are difficult to prove in
American courts. The burden of proof
is on the person who feels they were
slandered or libeled and they have to
prove in court what was said about them
was untrue and that they were injured
by what was said.

Look at the cases of celebrity libel cases.
In Britain celebrities routinely take the
tabloids to court and win settlements.
You rarely see this in the States.
The only case I can think of is the
Carol Burnett case where she took
the National Enquirer to court and
a jury awarded her a settlement and
the Enquirer issued a retraction.

But really nasty stuff is protected under
free speech. Holocaust deniers,
racist assholery, personal attacks
on public figures. If said speech
results on a crime(conspiracy) or
violence the law can come down.
Anyone who makes a threat against
the president is investigated but not
necessarily prosecuted.
Hate speech can be protected as
satire or in the case of dreck like
The Turner Diaries disguised as fiction.


_____________________________

A thousand dreams within me softly burn.
Rimbaud




(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/18/2012 11:30:36 PM   
Winterapple


Posts: 1343
Joined: 8/19/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking

The interesting thing about this incident is that Egypt has filed charges against the film producers and that Florida hatemonger 'reverend' - said charges carrying the death penalty. This is going to make a fine hash of things, since the USA can't turn them over on free speech grounds, yet refusing to do so will cause a major stink in the Middle East, and give more fodder to the Radicals.

The charges against Jones won't result in
anything nor should they. As repulsive
as he is, he is an American citizen.
He does bear some moral culpability
in all this just as the guy on Egyptian
television who fanned the flames
bears moral culpability for his actions.
But the US isn't going to ship Jones
off to Egypt to be tried in an Egyptian
court for doing something he was within
his rights as a American citizen to do.
There aren't laws in the US that protect
people from being offended.

The Egyptians that are accused are
I suppose legally accountable for their
actions. I don't know if they can be
legally extradited to face the charges
or not. They could ask for asylum I
imagine if push came to shove.



_____________________________

A thousand dreams within me softly burn.
Rimbaud




(in reply to DaNewAgeViking)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 4:47:45 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking
The interesting thing about this incident is that Egypt has filed charges against the film producers and that Florida hatemonger 'reverend' - said charges carrying the death penalty. This is going to make a fine hash of things, since the USA can't turn them over on free speech grounds, yet refusing to do so will cause a major stink in the Middle East, and give more fodder to the Radicals..

Another interesting aspect is revealed if we compare these cases to the treatment of Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame, currently holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and Bradley Manning, Assange's alleged informant. Assange has been granted political asylum status by the Ecuadorian Govt to protect him from the long arm of the US 'justice' system.
Assange's 'crime' is that he published c250, 000 documents, most of which were internal US communications and classified as secret. No one has been harmed or met with violence as a result of Assange's actions. The question of 'hate speech' doesn't arise here. Assange was doing his job as a journalist by bringing to public attention some documents that the US Govt, in its wisdom, preferred to keep under wraps. There is no evidence to suggest that US national security has been seriously compromised by Assange's actions.
There are good grounds for believing that the US intends to bring him to trial in the USA for his actions. Already, Assange's alleged contact, Bradley Manning is being kept in conditions that don't fall short of torture while he awaits his trial for his whistle blowing.
Am I alone in seeing a double standard operating here?


You forgot the air quotes around wisdom.

No, you are not the only one.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 4:56:32 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Well as someone who lives in the U.S., I don't find Americans particularly welcoming of people of non-Christian or non-Jewish background. This is still very much a Judeo-Christian country, and there is a lot of misunderstanding and misperception about religions outside of the Abrahamic religions even here. I would not translate the free speech laws that we have here as creating greater open-mindedness about other religions. I speak as someone who knows.




I haven't lived in Manhattan since I was a child, but I can't say I found many in the city all that welcoming of somebody from the other side of the country, either. It just ain't a friendly place, in my experience. I hope you'll have the opportunity to get a broader perspective on us.




Uh, I was born and raised in the Midwest and have worked all over the country (west coast, south, texas, etc.). I am speaking of my experience as an American and about America broadly. It is still a very Judeo-Christian centered country. I actually find Manhattan a MUCH more welcoming place. That's why I LIVE here


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to TheHeretic)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 5:02:12 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Well, nobody is going around making a film on Hosea marrying a whore or Jesus probably being bi but mostly homosexual and hanging with a whore, everybody has him at immaculate conception and didnt fuck. Sort of solves the sex problem if he is a ken doll.


There is a scene in Katzantzakis' book (not the film, I think) The Last Temptation of Christ in which Jesus is waiting his turn in a mud hut for a whack at Mary Magdalene, portrayed as a whore. I don't recall if he got laid. I can't swear that was even his intent; I do recall it was a sweaty scene. Or maybe I was sweaty . . . lol!

Yes, and when the Scorcese film came out here's what happened (from Wikipedia). Just going to prove that any group can be violent:

Controversy

The Last Temptation of Christ's eponymous final sequence depicts the crucified Jesus—tempted by what turns out to be Satan in the form of a beautiful, androgynous child—experiencing a dream or alternative reality where he comes down from the cross, marries Mary Magdalene (and later Mary and Martha), and lives out his life as a full mortal man. He learns on his deathbed that he was deceived by Satan and begs God to let him "be [God's] son," at which point he finds himself once again on the cross. At other points in the film, Jesus is depicted as building crosses for the Romans, kissing other men on the lips, being tormented by the voice of God, and lamenting the many sins he believes he has committed.
Because of these radical departures from the gospel narratives—and especially a brief scene wherein Jesus and Mary Magdalene consummate their marriage—several Christian fundamentalist groups organized vocal protests and boycotts of the film prior to and upon its release. One protest, organized by a religious Californian radio station, gathered 600 protesters to picket the headquarters of Universal Studios' parent company MCA;[5] one of the protestors dressed as MCA's Jewish Chairman Lew Wasserman and pretended to drive nails through Jesus' hands into a wooden cross.[4] Bill Bright of Campus Crusade for Christ offered to buy the film's negative from Universal in order to destroy it.[5] The protests were effective in convincing several theater chains not to screen the film;[5] one of those chains, General Cinemas, later apologized to Scorsese for doing so.[4]

[edit]Banning
In some countries, including Turkey, Mexico, Chile, and Argentina, the film was banned or censored for several years. As of July 2010, the movie continues to be banned in the Philippines and Singapore.[6]

[edit]Use in Schools
In 1989, Albuquerque high school teacher Joyce Briscoe showed the film to history students at La Cueva High School, raising a storm of controversy by parents and local Christian broadcaster KLYT.[7]

[edit]Attack on Saint Michel theater, Paris
On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.[8][9] The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged,[9] and reopened 3 years later after restoration. Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public." Jack Lang, France's Minister of Culture, went to the St.-Michel theater after the fire, and said, "Freedom of speech is threatened, and we must not be intimidated by such acts."[9] The Archbishop of Paris, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, said "One doesn't have the right to shock the sensibilities of millions of people for whom Jesus is more important than their father or mother."[9] After the fire he condemned the attack, saying, "You don't behave as Christians but as enemies of Christ. From the Christian point of view, one doesn't defend Christ with arms. Christ himself forbade it."[9] The leader of Christian Solidarity, a Roman Catholic group that had promised to stop the film from being shown, said, "We will not hesitate to go to prison if it is necessary."[9]

The attack was subsequently blamed on a Christian fundamentalist group linked to Bernard Antony, a representative of the far-right Front National to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, and the excommunicated followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.[8] Lefebvre had been excommunicated from the Catholic Church on July 2, 1988. Similar attacks against theatres included graffiti, setting off tear-gas canisters and stink bombs, and assaulting filmgoers.[8] At least nine people believed to be members of the Catholic fundamentalist group were arrested.[8] Rene Remond, a historian, said of the Catholic far-right, "It is the toughest component of the National Front and it is motivated more by religion than by politics. It has a coherent political philosophy that has not changed for 200 years: it is the rejection of the revolution, of the republic and of modernism."[8]



_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 7:07:09 AM   
Winterapple


Posts: 1343
Joined: 8/19/2011
Status: offline
And now you can see the movie on the cable.
Scorsese wasn't kept from making the film,
he wasn't arrested for making the film and
the film was distributed. The people who
protested it had the right to do so.

Was the reaction to the film from some
members of the religious community
hysterical? Yes. Did some theater buckle
under pressure? Yes. Did the protests
keep some people from seeing the film
or made it more difficult for them to do
so? Yes. Should people be allowed to
make up their own minds about such
things? Yes. But the government had
nothing to do with censoring the film.
If the movie was being made and released
today there would probably be less hysteria.
But there would still probably be efforts
from groups and private citizens to ban it.
It's for people who believe differently to
make their opinions known. The squeaky
wheel usually gets the grease in situations
like this but it's not the government it's
businessmen who cave

_____________________________

A thousand dreams within me softly burn.
Rimbaud




(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 7:37:02 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Winterapple

And now you can see the movie on the cable.
Scorsese wasn't kept from making the film,
he wasn't arrested for making the film and
the film was distributed. The people who
protested it had the right to do so.

Was the reaction to the film from some
members of the religious community
hysterical? Yes. Did some theater buckle
under pressure? Yes. Did the protests
keep some people from seeing the film
or made it more difficult for them to do
so? Yes. Should people be allowed to
make up their own minds about such
things? Yes. But the government had
nothing to do with censoring the film.
If the movie was being made and released
today there would probably be less hysteria.
But there would still probably be efforts
from groups and private citizens to ban it.
It's for people who believe differently to
make their opinions known. The squeaky
wheel usually gets the grease in situations
like this but it's not the government it's
businessmen who cave


The last I checked, the U.S. government did not interfere with the production or distribution of the 13 minute film that has provoked the anti-U.S. protests throughout the Islamic population. My post is offered as an explanation for why some of the rioting is occurring. It is occurring in places that have a different perspective on hate speech from what we have in the U.S. Sitting here and having a debate about what ought to be the law is fine, but I am simply trying to inform people that the laws are different in some of these countries, that the laws in some of these countries also protect the Christian religion, and that some of the anger is coming from a different approach. I don't think sitting back and saying "well all speech ought to be protected" actually furthers our understanding of what is currently going on in some of these countries. I'm not trying to have a philosophical argument about the American First Amendment - we all understand how the law works here. And theorizing about what ought to be the law elsewhere doesn't get us very far in trying to address the current situation. People, including Christians, get upset when their religion is insulted. The rules here do not define standards of either free speech or protest in other countries.


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to Winterapple)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 7:53:46 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

The last I checked, the U.S. government did not interfere with the production or distribution of the 13 minute film that has provoked the anti-U.S. protests throughout the Islamic population. My post is offered as an explanation for why some of the rioting is occurring. It is occurring in places that have a different perspective on hate speech from what we have in the U.S. Sitting here and having a debate about what ought to be the law is fine, but I am simply trying to inform people that the laws are different in some of these countries, that the laws in some of these countries also protect the Christian religion, and that some of the anger is coming from a different approach. I don't think sitting back and saying "well all speech ought to be protected" actually furthers our understanding of what is currently going on in some of these countries. I'm not trying to have a philosophical argument about the American First Amendment - we all understand how the law works here. And theorizing about what ought to be the law elsewhere doesn't get us very far in trying to address the current situation. People, including Christians, get upset when their religion is insulted. The rules here do not define standards of either free speech or protest in other countries.

The laws are different because the cultures are different. Inarguable. But the response was lawless. So, what good are the laws?

Should Youtube have censored access in those countries based on their laws? Didn't Google run into a similar issue with China?

Are the makers of the film here in the US subject to those foreign laws? Evidently not.

I do understand your intent for the OP and I do not take issue with it. But how does understanding the source of the rage [I think there is much more to it than simply the laws] effect future actions by film makers and cartoonists in the West?

Asked of anyone. Not only FTP.

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 7:56:41 AM   
Winterapple


Posts: 1343
Joined: 8/19/2011
Status: offline
These riots are happening for a variety of
reasons not just offense at Islam being insulted.
It's not all about religion or democracy versus
theocracy. These societies are full of young
unemployed men with little in the way of
hope, that's always a powder keg.

Religon is being used as a tool for
political power as it often is.
Exploiting the genuine outrage sincere
people of faith have is part and parcel
of that. In the US our own cultural wars
are often wrapped up in faith and morality
and people on the right exploit it for
their political gain. Poltical gain that isn't
about religion but is about money.

There's resentment and anger towards
the West for various reasons. Religon is
is a vehicle or means of expressing that
anger as well as a cultural identity.

_____________________________

A thousand dreams within me softly burn.
Rimbaud




(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 8:07:35 AM   
fucktoyprincess


Posts: 2337
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The last I checked, the U.S. government did not interfere with the production or distribution of the 13 minute film that has provoked the anti-U.S. protests throughout the Islamic population. My post is offered as an explanation for why some of the rioting is occurring. It is occurring in places that have a different perspective on hate speech from what we have in the U.S. Sitting here and having a debate about what ought to be the law is fine, but I am simply trying to inform people that the laws are different in some of these countries, that the laws in some of these countries also protect the Christian religion, and that some of the anger is coming from a different approach. I don't think sitting back and saying "well all speech ought to be protected" actually furthers our understanding of what is currently going on in some of these countries. I'm not trying to have a philosophical argument about the American First Amendment - we all understand how the law works here. And theorizing about what ought to be the law elsewhere doesn't get us very far in trying to address the current situation. People, including Christians, get upset when their religion is insulted. The rules here do not define standards of either free speech or protest in other countries.

The laws are different because the cultures are different. Inarguable. But the response was lawless. So, what good are the laws?

Should Youtube have censored access in those countries based on their laws? Didn't Google run into a similar issue with China?

Are the makers of the film here in the US subject to those foreign laws? Evidently not.

I do understand your intent for the OP and I do not take issue with it. But how does understanding the source of the rage [I think there is much more to it than simply the laws] effect future actions by film makers and cartoonists in the West?

Asked of anyone. Not only FTP.

I think, at a bare minimum, our response to the riots should NOT be all Islamic people are "bad" and need to be killed. And there has been that kind of viewpoint expressed here, and in the media generally. I don't think that is a useful response. I think the only way the moderates on both sides can build bridges is to start to try to understand each other. And if we constantly take the approach that our way is the only way that is correct, even when we know our way insults the other side, I'm not sure how much progress can be made. You have Islamic countries like Turkey that banned The Last Temptation of Christ. I'm just trying to say that people who feel that they should protect their Christian minority, are thinking in a very different way from us. And that needs to be understood if we are going to have a proper dialogue with the moderates in each of the Islamic countries - and each of these countries is different. They are not a monolith. There is no such thing as a unified group of Islamic people. Defeating the extremists on both sides requires the moderates to find some middle ground that is acceptable. And the moderates, both here, and there, are a varied lot. We could do with more education about these countries. Americans are, to a large extent, and I include myself, incredibly ignorant about many of these countries.

I was in New York when Christian fundamentalists were protesting The Last Temptation of Christ outside of movie theaters. It didn't stop me from going, but it also didn't make decide that all Christians were "bad" and needed to be killed. I think we could use some more sophistication in our thinking about the Islamic nations. And I read a lot of stuff from people generally that makes me cringe.

Also, the lawlessness of the response is not a categorical reason to deny people the right to protest. Much of what happened during the civil rights movement in the U.S. was illegal. One has to be careful to understand what the protest is about, and again whether there is room for movement. This can never happen if we choose to treat Islamic people as a monolithic group that follows a stupid religion and needs to be eliminated. For heaven's sakes, I could say that about any religious group - it doesn't get us anywhere.

< Message edited by fucktoyprincess -- 9/19/2012 8:16:24 AM >


_____________________________

~ ftp

(in reply to vincentML)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' A... - 9/19/2012 8:34:05 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

I had no idea they treated all the Abrahamic religions equally when it came to hate speech.


Yep differently...they burn Christian churches and murder Christians in the streets...but no hate speech.

But...We also burned a Mosque in Joplin Mo. I guess...and we allow hate speech.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 9/19/2012 8:38:54 AM >


_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to fucktoyprincess)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: First Amendment, Hate Speech and Other Countries' Approaches Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125