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.

quote:



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

quote:


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

quote:


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

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".

English - Did I mention I am adoring your posts btw... total admiration.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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

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.   

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.