RE: Freedom of Expression (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 5:44:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

English,

Your quote:

So do you also believe that Muslim demonstrations in London, which could lead to violence from the right, should also be banned?  Or are you selectively curbing freedoms based on your own politics?
 
Why would you jump to the conclusion I would selectively curb freedom of speech? I have never said that anywhere and in fact if you read closely I speak about principles of Government - no principle can be applied selectively due to the very meaning of the word principle.

For the record, and you now have your wish of turning the debate to the attentions of the muslim community, all peaceful protest/debate that is not aimed at incitement of any race, religion, culture etc is legitimate.



I didn't turn the debate into the attentions of the Muslim community, the original post addressed an event that was directly linked with the Muslim community.  If you can tell me how we debate the Danish cartoons without addressing the Muslim community, I'd love to hear it.

quote:



It is not the reaction of another group that is central to the debate.


With respect, it was me that posted the original debate.

quote:



It is the intention and implied meaning of what is said. For example, if muslims protested against housing discrimination then that is legitimate - it may lead to violence from the right due to their extreme views but that doesn't mean it is not legitimate protest. There are blatantly issues of social justice and it is the right of citizen's to address this through protest. However, if the protest by Muslims was violent, aggressive and aimed at stirring up emotions then it is not legitimate and the police should step in to arrest them (as per the protest of 200 with placards in London).

There's not many ways to say this so this will be a repeat. Any action that is aimed at incitement, carried out by any group of people is not legitimate and should be censored.


Indeed.  What I asked you though was who decides where the lines are drawn.  Who gets the job of saying "It's ok to say this, but not this".  Saying "Government does" isn't really an answer since Governments by their nature vary across the political spectrum.  What one side feels is ok, the other side would be vociferously against.

As far as I can see, all the laws necessary to protect people from reaction to incitement are already in place.  Weren't there later arrests of Muslims who held death-proclaiming placards?
quote:


Where we seem to be disagreeing is you seem to think it is ok to try and stir up racial tension


And you accused me of putting words into your mouth?  I don't think it's "ok to stir up racial tension", if I did, I wouldn't have called the Danish cartoons "stupid, unnecessary and needlessly inflammatory".  .

What I'm actually saying is that the reaction to those cartoons was inexcusable and the people taking part in them, no matter how offended, should not have used violence to express that offence.  That, to me, has to be the first and foremost point.  Deal with the cartoon later - first, you have to instill into people that violence is not a legitimate means of protest no matter how offended you may be.

quote:


- I don't agree and my opinion is there should be laws that prevent this sort of thing.


There already are, aren't there?.  This leads back to my point of "who decides the laws you're proposing", because once you start changing the law through fear of a violent reaction, you're no longer living in a free society but a society ruled by intimidation.   You're effectively saying "Your violence worked".



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 7:50:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

Absolutely.  The freedom to demonstrate can't be curbed just because there might be violence from a section of society.

But apply the same principle to the publication of a cartoon.  Should they not publish because there might be violence?

From my own point of view, if you publish an inflammatory cartoon and violence follows, it's the ensuing violence that needs addressing, not the cartoon.  You can address the wisdom of publishing the cartoon later but first and foremost, people have to be made aware that a free society will never tolerate the use of violence as a means of expressing outrage.

The reason I say this by the way is because if you look at most people's thinking about the cartoon it would be "It was a stupid, unnecessary and insulting thing to publish that was bound to create needless tension".  But once violent acts follow, that support is likely to give way to "ok, that violence is even more wrong".

Hello English - (I was going to leave this thread alone otherwise it's just talking in circles, but I am enjoying your posts too much)
 
There is a line.  When the original cartoon was printed, it was printed out of genuine reasons - from as far as I can gather.  They do not regret posting it - nor should they - however they do regret the reaction it caused.  Nuff said - they did apologise.  They did have the graciousness to meet with muslim leaders.
 
The line is drawn by the right wing papers that reprinted the said articles - knowing it would cause the response it did - admiting they were doing so to provoke and claiming they had the right to blasphemy - thats like having the right to be racist - the right to be a peadophile.  Of course anyone has the right to *insert whatever shit here*... but when it is adding fuel to an already burning fire, and infringes on other people and their lives knowingly, then that line is crossed.
 
It is the difference between calling someone or someones beliefs stupid because you believe it - and trying to prove it by provoking and using entrapment.
 
English - Did I mention I am adoring your posts btw... total admiration.[;)]
Peace and Rapture



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 7:54:37 AM)

And of course, your repeated untrue claims about that cartoon's intent aren't in any way provocation, are they?



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 7:59:51 AM)

They are facts are as they were reported by and within the media themselves.  Just pick up a back copy anytime you like or find a relevant news item.  They aren't hard to find.
 
Peace and Rapture



IronBear -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 8:06:04 AM)

Of course I'm just one of these blokes who tend to believe that I have the right to express myself as I see fit. However I also believe tht in doing so I should be sesitive to other's beliefs in the way I express myself and also elieve that what I way or do is my responsibility. In short, I'll not allow others to dictate what I can and can not do. However I will listen to reasoned arguments and thus say what I feel or believe in after making reasonable attempts not to offend others.... As in most things I'm happy to agree to disagree for in many cases both I and my opposition are being true to our beliefs and thus are both right from our perspectives.. 



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 8:51:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

They are facts are as they were reported by and within the media themselves.  Just pick up a back copy anytime you like or find a relevant news item.  They aren't hard to find.
 
Peace and Rapture



Completely untrue....you went out on a limb, posting a criminal citation, and specifically saying that this cartoon violated it by calling for violence against Muslims...your words, anyone can go back and see them...and you were flat out wrong, the cartoon in no way asked anyone to commit violence against Muslims, your imaginary news items notwithstanding..

It isn't my fault that the limb broke off under you, get over it and move on, instead of trying to backpedal and play the victim.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 9:45:58 AM)

English,

Your quotes:

It is not the reaction of another group that is central to the debate.

With respect, it was me that posted the original debate.

What I'm actually saying is that the reaction to those cartoons was inexcusable and the people taking part in them, no matter how offended, should not have used violence to express that offence.  That, to me, has to be the first and foremost point.
 
You are completely contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you say you have argued all along that the reaction to the debate is not the central issue. In this later sentence posted above you then say it has to be the first and foremost point - and this is what you have argued consistently until doing a sharp U-turn.

As I pointed out originally, there are two issues 1) The principles of freedom of speech - what does freedom actually mean? should speech have limits? how and when should law be applied? etc 2) The reaction to the cartoons which some on here are labelling as central to the debate.

It is more than possible to discuss the principles of freedom of speech without going down the path of referring to the reaction in the Muslim community (unless of course that the path you want to go down).

This is another struggle to get across but a discussion on freedom of speech is abouth ethics, principles, morals - for whatever reason some on here keep pointing to corrupt Governments in practice when freedom of speech is a conceptual/theoretical argument.

The laws blatantly aren't already there because right-wing newspapers were allowed to publish these cartoons so I have absolutely no idea what laws you refer to when you say 'they are already there'.

NorthernGent



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 9:59:53 AM)

Right, to no-one in particular. This is an attempt to put some structure into the debate around 2 central questions rather than skimming issues and stumbling from one point to another:

1) Why are laws required to prevent harm to others in society?
 
A function of law is to protect civil rights. A civil right is the right to live free of harm from others.

There are laws against physical violence because it causes harm, laws against abuse of position because it causes harm, laws against crime because it causes harm, laws against business practice that cause harm,  laws against anti-social behaviour because it causes harm.

It follows that if speech is intended to cause harm (as the cartoons were) then there should be laws to prevent this. It is simply being consistent with all other areas of law. Speech is not unique when it comes to law.

2) Why is the immediate reaction in the Muslim community of secondary importance in the debate on freedom of speech?
 
a) If the cartoons had not being produced and printed there would have been nothing to react against.

b) The immediate reaction in the Muslim community is a cog in a chain of events designed to achieve the end goal of the newspapers that published the cartoons (i.e. only a cog, far from central). The publishers knew full well what the reaction would be in the Muslim community. They also knew full well that a significant percentage of white Europeans would focus on the reaction and fail to see the wider picture. Consequently, the producers aimed to make use of this focus on the Muslim reaction to gain support for their xenophobic outlook on life (mainly by preying on people's fear and ignorance). Thus, the immediate reaction in the Muslim community is merely a chapter in a story (as laid out in the above) and it follows that the reaction should have the relative importance of the chapter compared with the story and it's meaning.

NorthernGent



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:26:33 AM)

quote:

A function of law is to protect civil rights. A civil right is the right to live free of harm from others.

There are laws against physical violence because it causes harm, laws against abuse of position because it causes harm, laws against crime because it causes harm, laws against business practice that cause harm,  laws against anti-social behaviour because it causes harm.

It follows that if speech is intended to cause harm (as the cartoons were) then there should be laws to prevent this. It is simply being consistent with all other areas of law. Speech is not unique when it comes to law.


Well, first, that creates a non-existent civil right to never be offended, by conflating  'cause harm' with ''react as though actual harm had occured'. 
Event 'A' (the cartoon) may precede  event 'C' (the violent reaction), but the causal link is not established, any more than Ted Bundy's claim that reading Penthouse caused him to murder can be taken seriously.

And second, speech is different, because of its agentic relationship to thought. 
If event 'A'. above is a punch, or a thrown brick, and event 'C' is a broken head, we don't need to know much else to establish a causal and criminal link.(And yes I'm aware that there are defenses/excuses to the above, but they ameliorate the link, they don't eliminate it).

So unless we are prepared to outlaw certain forms of thought, we (society) need to have a litle more than mere speech and an offended reaction to go on. 

Either the speech needs to cross a threshold (such as a cartoon specifically urging violence against Muslims), or a presumption that the reaction is more likely caused by the re-actor should hold sway (as in Lewis v. Sacramento, USSC)



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:28:01 AM)

Indeed - the cartoon never told people to go out and commit random acts of violence.  And please cite my exact words on which post where I did say that - in context without misquoting - those exact words and I will look.
You have a wonderful knack of trying to make people look like they said something they didnt, not just here but on other threads.  Fortunately most can see right through you.
 
As for being 'completely untrue'... the words I cited were from the media themselves.  That is why they are in quotes cited from news sources, and their own publications.  Just search for yourself and like I said - you shall find.
 
The original cartoons were produced after a kare bluitgen(sp?) found he couldnt find an illustrator willing to work with him on his book - and whilst the original context of why they were published was lost under the fury of possible over reaction to it's intent - there is no disagreement that the reposting of the said cartoons were done out of 'freedom to blashemy' (Die Welt) and were admitted to be .  So dont sit there safely behind your computer screen and type about lies when you are the one making them.  Maybe you just cannot read or speak German and that is why you have no idea what was written.  Maybe you should learn before professing you know all.  I do not know all - I just inform it as it was written.
 
Peace and Rapture
 





Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:36:22 AM)

Oh, now you are just committing outright fraud, and doing so badly...you posted what I said you posted, complete with link to criminal code, and now you want me to prove you said something else about your allegations of incitement to violence against Muslims specifically using the word 'random'?

A very cheesy attempt at misdirection, and very telling.

Does it really gall you that much to admit to a mistake? Other people do it and their heads don't explode...you should try it, I promise it won't hurt a bit.

In fact, if I go back, and find that it wasn't you, but someone else who posted the legal link and claimed the cartoons violated it it by inciting violence against Muslims, I'll be the first to apologize.



Dauric -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:53:33 AM)

Complicated topic, Been in this on another board (www.schlockmercenary.com the author is a cartoonist, so naturally he felt some concern on the issue.)

   -- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I've seen the cartoons in question. Half of them are just images of Muhammed, the kind you would see depicting christ in ay number of christian publications. The other half are tame by standards of modern, or even historical, political cartooning.

Now if the muslim community was really upset about these cartoons they should have boycotted danish beer and bacon.... (Yes I know.)

Calling for violence, the assasination of the cartoonists or the publishers of the magazines in question, that's beyond what is acceptable. It's immature and one can only wonder about the strengh-of-faith of those who are threatened by some fourteen illustrations in a small-european publication.

I know that the cartoons were reprinted in a ultra-national right-wing danish publication. I understand that this publication was after the outrage that they got. It's not illegal to be racist, it's illegal to impress that racism on others. I intensely dislike the KKK and what they have to say, but they can say it as much as they want. The control on that is that their thoughts and speech are so abhorrent in our society the more they talk, the deeper the hole they dig for themselves. You don't need laws to control that kind of expression, just let society have it's way.

When suggesting legislation, keep this in mind: You need to rely on the strength of an idea to see it through, not laws to protect it. Good ideas will rise to the surface even through legal barriers, bad ones will sink even with laws and 'thought police' working fervently to keep them afloat. Legislation, 'thought police' (gestapo, KGB, etc.) only slows down the process.

Just my $0.02.

Dauric.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:53:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

English,

Your quotes:

It is not the reaction of another group that is central to the debate.

With respect, it was me that posted the original debate.

What I'm actually saying is that the reaction to those cartoons was inexcusable and the people taking part in them, no matter how offended, should not have used violence to express that offence.  That, to me, has to be the first and foremost point.
 
You are completely contradicting yourself. In your first sentence you say you have argued all along that the reaction to the debate is not the central issue. In this later sentence posted above you then say it has to be the first and foremost point - and this is what you have argued consistently until doing a sharp U-turn.


NorthernGent, saying a tree is a mountain doesn't make the mountain a tree.  If you have any kind of disagreement with the points I'm raising, debate them.  Disagree with them.  Don't invent "u-turns" which clearly didn't take place simply because you can't find a legitimate argument within yourself.  In absolutely every post I've made I think I've pointed out that the violence to me is the major and over-riding issue, not the cartoon. 

About two pages back I pointed out you hadn't condemned the violence but had condemned the cartoon on practically every thread you've made.  Now your attention turns to right-wing newspapers.

How about you lay the blame of the violence on the violent people that took part in it and stop using an offensive cartoon as a means to excuse that violence?


quote:




As I pointed out originally, there are two issues 1) The principles of freedom of speech - what does freedom actually mean? should speech have limits? how and when should law be applied? etc 2) The reaction to the cartoons which some on here are labelling as central to the debate.

It is more than possible to discuss the principles of freedom of speech without going down the path of referring to the reaction in the Muslim community (unless of course that the path you want to go down).

This is another struggle to get across but a discussion on freedom of speech is abouth ethics, principles, morals - for whatever reason some on here keep pointing to corrupt Governments in practice when freedom of speech is a conceptual/theoretical argument.

The laws blatantly aren't already there because right-wing newspapers were allowed to publish these cartoons so I have absolutely no idea what laws you refer to when you say 'they are already there'.


Interesting.  You want to curb the freedoms of "Right-wing newspapers". 

I wonder why that would be.

If the publication of those cartoons isn't illegal and a newspaper prints them, I'm afraid as much as I disagree with that decision, I wholeheartedly support their right to do it.  What I don't support is the argument "Ban it because there might be a violent reaction".  There shouldn't be a violent reaction in the first place, something I've still to hear you condemn outright.



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 10:55:28 AM)

Like I said - show me and I will look.  I am not afraid of apologising (even though -AGAIN - you try and make it look like someone is saying something they are not) if I did say as you claim.  Even apologise if what I said was misunderstood and I should have made it more clear.
 
However during this thread I never posted links to anything.  I quoted from the Human Rights Documents and from certain media sources (Die Welt) but there are no links that I am aware of.
The human rights document is the only one I can think you are refering to.  And I cited that as an example of 'freedom of expression'... English was asking what where the line was drawn - I simply gave that as an example ofwhere one country draws the line.  I never said it was right, I never said it was what I believed - I gave an example that if it was held up to the US document it would have failed.
(oh - but then, by saying that - I must be backpeddling - silly me)
 
And unlike yourself, I would not demand an apology.  I do not expect it.
For truth needs no apology or defense.  It just exists.
 
Peace and Rapture



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 11:00:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

The thing to remember is WHO posted the cartoons.  And where they were posted.  A picture of a pig drinking milk is only a picture of a pig drinking milk unless it is posted in a certain way in a certain article.
 
I totally understand what Northeen Gent is getting at and it isn't that far removed from what others are saying.
 
As for the remark about verbal attacks on the US, well - I would say that the same can be said for the UK and for australian as they are often posted.   But whats worse - attacks on a country for its policies - or personal attacks on a poster just because you don't understand, or agree with his stance?
I see no difference, just simple double standards.
 
Freedom of expression comes with responsibility.  Respect for the human, no matter the race, colour or creed is an interesting and beautiful concept, but rarely demonstrated.  Basic Human rights state that respect for the dignity for all people is the ultimate goal.  Those cartoons broke that declaration and the newspapers that printed them knew that.   Everyone has the right to have their Lifestyle respected, even if people cannot bring to adopt it or accept it for themselves.
 
Everyone under HRL has the freedom to express personal thought and expression.   'This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice ' Within that statement, one should also expect a certain response from others in kind.  Hate is perpetuated - (as is being shown quite clearly by this thread).
 
quote:

Any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion, language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.
The article/cartoon in question failed on many counts (including the above) and infringed on the basic human rights of a section of the community.  Countless times on this forum, I have seen people bemoaning the laws stance on anti-BDSM related attacks - unreliable arrests, disgusting misrepresentation in the media (De Sade/80 wives), or on film (re the Pet/Secretary) - and in response I see and often hear hateful responses and a growing amount of 'name calling' that only adds to a 'us and them ' mentality.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

Freedom of speech is a concept.
With no limits of any kind it becomes unworkable. 
Total freedom of speech would include the right to say literally anything with impunity...perjury, slander, calling 911 constantly with false reports, revealing confidential information, inciting violence, bomb threats...all are communications by 'speech'.

So the question is, what speech do you limit? Offensive speech? Hate speech? Obscene speech? Unpopular speech? Minority speech? Obstructive speech? Abba?
 
I would refere you to the above quotation bluehighlighted - Freedom of Expression and speech is a basic human right.  But on all human rights issues - a right is only a right until it infringes on anothers freedoms.
 
Peace and Rapture



And of course, in case anyone was unclear....
quote:

I am speak of cartoons or literature or any medium - violent or not - that incites racial violence being no different to a violent act.  The violence within the cartoon is not the issue - it is the message behind the cartoon and in which publications they are posted.  And yes, I then see a violent act - and a publication made to incite violence as equal.   


And...

quote:

Then try and understand it instead of just placing your own interpretation on it.
If a cartoon effort is to incite violence - that is an act of violence in itself.
There is a difference in a cartoon that ridicules a act/ race/ minority/sex to one that is posted to incite violence or hatred.



And of course my reply, making sure that we were in fact talking about 'inciting violence' against Muslims as defined by your quote of the human Rights code.
quote:

  'Constitutes incitement to lawless violence' in the context cited above, is a phrase with a specific meaning...distorting that meaning is no different than crying 'rape', or 'murder',  when none has occured.

Labelling something that does not meet the elements of the crimes above, as a crime, merely because you disagree with it, or someone else disagreed with it, (even if their disagreement was expressed violently), does no one a service.

In fact, one could point out that it is an attempt to legitimize the violence...and why would anyone want to do that?

 
And your reply, where you in no wise ever say anything to dispel the notion that you are still accusing the cartoonist of violating the specific section about 'incitemnt to violence' against another group:

quote:

Because people do.  Not because of religion, or out of a sense of democracy or out of patriotism.  Those are excuses - it also gives humans the chance to lay blame on someone they dont understand nor even want to.  Most humans live for conflict.  It isnt the gun that kills people, the gun is only the tool - Just like words or images or some cartoons.  People kill people.  That's what you get with Freedom of Expression without thought for basic human rights and the respects for fellow man/woman.  If you want FoE - you have to accept that your going to tred on toes - and be responsible enough to accept the consequence of your actions.
 
 
So I think we can all see the root of the problem here... you aren't really denying posting the exact words you posted....someone else
 must be posting under your name.....
[8|]
 



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 11:11:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Right, to no-one in particular. This is an attempt to put some structure into the debate around 2 central questions rather than skimming issues and stumbling from one point to another:

1) Why are laws required to prevent harm to others in society?
 
A function of law is to protect civil rights. A civil right is the right to live free of harm from others.

There are laws against physical violence because it causes harm, laws against abuse of position because it causes harm, laws against crime because it causes harm, laws against business practice that cause harm,  laws against anti-social behaviour because it causes harm.

It follows that if speech is intended to cause harm (as the cartoons were) then there should be laws to prevent this. It is simply being consistent with all other areas of law. Speech is not unique when it comes to law.


Here we go again.  None of the things you listed apply to a cartoon.  It does not cause harm to anybody.  It cannot physically attack you, it cannot commit a crime against your person, it cannot be issued with an ASBO.
This is why I disagree with you so strongly.  The cartoon does not cause violence to anybody. 

The violence is caused by people's REACTION to that cartoon.

Example.  You're sitting next to a man on a train.  He stands up and says "I think all Christians are terrorists".  You physically attack him because he's offended you.

His opinion was not violent, your reaction to it was.

quote:






2) Why is the immediate reaction in the Muslim community of secondary importance in the debate on freedom of speech?
 
a) If the cartoons had not being produced and printed there would have been nothing to react against.

I am stunned you can say this.  It's giving out a clear signal "If you're offended by something, be violent.  The people that offended you are to blame".
quote:


b) The immediate reaction in the Muslim community is a cog in a chain of events designed to achieve the end goal of the newspapers that published the cartoons (i.e. only a cog, far from central). The publishers knew full well what the reaction would be in the Muslim community.


"They knew full well what the reaction would be".  My point exactly.  It was universally accepted that there would be "a violent reaction".  Exactly. But you should be saying to that section of society "You have no right to use violence as a reaction to anything and we shouldn't be sitting here knowing what your reaction will be".  That position of an expected violent reaction is my entire point.  We have to make it completely clear to all sections of society that violent reactions won't be tolerated full stop, let alone expected.

I don't disagree that the newspapers who printed the cartoon had their own anti-Muslim agenda and they deliberately used them as a tool to stir up resentment among the Muslim community.

But I sure as hell don't go along with your line of "the violence was to be expected" instead of "You have zero right to resort to it".  A cartoon may have infuriated someone, offended him and more.

But the picking up of a rock and throwing it at someone's head was his decision, not the cartoons.



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 11:20:25 AM)

First - I replied about the HR citation above already.
I will add that while I do believe in the HR - I did not say that the cartoon did break it on purpose.  I said that if you were taking HR into consideration you can see how the cartoon broke all those listed.
 
quote:

And of course, in case anyone was unclear....




quote:

I am speak of cartoons or literature or any medium - violent or not - that incites racial violence being no different to a violent act.  The violence within the cartoon is not the issue - it is the message behind the cartoon and in which publications they are posted.  And yes, I then see a violent act - and a publication made to incite violence as equal.   
Then try and understand it instead of just placing your own interpretation on it.
If a cartoon effort is to incite violence - that is an act of violence in itself.
There is a difference in a cartoon that ridicules a act/ race/ minority/sex to one that is posted to incite violence or hatred.


Again - I was not talking about that particular cartoon - as is clear by saying all media that meaningfully  and purposefully (makes the effort to) incites racial violence.  Not those posted and misinterpreted (as was the original posting of the cartoon in the danish paper you are refering to )
 
quote:


And your reply, where you in no wise ever say anything to dispel the notion that you are still accusing the cartoonist of violating the specific section about 'incitemnt to violence' against another group:


You never once outright specified the cartoonist but spoke in general terms on why.  But I have already elsewhere throught this thread have explained where the original cartoon came from(if you had bothered to read) and I have constantly spoken on ALL media so as not to get tied down to a strictly 'muslim bashing' thread.  The OP was on Freedom of Expression and where the lines are drawn.

Your question was -

quote:


why would anyone want to do that?


And I responded.  Because people do.  They use religion, race sex as an excuse.  PEOPLE use those as an excuse.

I fail to see your point in trying to rip apart a thread without adding all the facts.  You are obviously not reading all the responses, else you would have seen who had posted the original history of the said cartoon.
Was it you?  I don't think so.
You are too busy perpetuating lies here and on other threads.
Peace and Rapture



Dauric -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 11:26:51 AM)

Please, let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum. They don't advance the issue, only fill up collachat's databases with useless garbage.

When it comes to freedom of speech I'm suprised that ANYONE on a BDSM site would advocate censorship beyond what already exists. There are laws and judicial decisions, around the world, that prevent someone from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless there really is one.)

As far as not offending the Muslims: This site and Collarme.com offend a lot of people, so they should be banned as well huh? Civil rights offended southerners so Truman should have sent in the national guard to keep black students out of southern schools, not to guard them when the supreme court put down the concept of "seperate but equal"?

You do not have the right to be not offended, muslims do not have the right to go through life without offense. It's how you respond to the offense that shows your character. You can ignore it, change the channel, turn it off, write an editorial piece and offend someone back if you really must.

Advocating murder because you're offended... Especially when you have the ear of an entire subcontinent, THAT'S shouting "Fire" in a crowded munitions depot.

Just my $0.02.

Dauric.



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 11:54:21 AM)

quote:

I fail to see your point in trying to rip apart a thread without adding all the facts.  You are obviously not reading all the responses, else you would have seen who had posted the original history of the said cartoon.
Was it you?  I don't think so.
You are too busy perpetuating lies here and on other threads.


Oh, I think you see my point quite clearly.... it is to puncture egos by calling people on their own words and refuting untrue assertions.

You were already shot down by other posters when you tried to pretend that 'all media' and this cartoon were the same, so you backpedalled to change what you meant.

Doesn't change the facts though, any more than your calling my posting of factual links to Holocaust history, or US Civil War history  'lies.... on other threads', means the Holocaust or slavery didn't happen as I said they did.

In fact, my posting lately seems to be heavy on direct factual rebuttals...no wonder I make people unhappy.

Your words (again) do a nice job of painting you as revisionist, so I guess my work here is done.



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 12:10:22 PM)

I have no power to puncture egos unless it is either true or the egos allow it.
Your choice.
 
Again - your post shows just how you like to manipulate words.
Well done.
 
Peace and Rapture



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875