RE: Freedom of Expression (Full Version)

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



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 12:15:00 PM)

How do you feel about billboards? Should this billboard incite violent response? Is there a humor or irony implied? Is it political editorializing?

quote:

In Tehran, the government has sanctioned billboards showing Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and a message that it is the duty of Muslims to "wipe out'' Israel. Officials also organized a demonstration in the southern city of Shiraz by Iran's small Jewish community calling for Israel's destruction and praising Hezbollah.


Source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9187ed75-f23e-4af1-ae3c-aeedc6304865



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 12:24:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: darkinshadows

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



LOL!! The 'Fortune cookie' defense...haven't seen that one for a while.

You have no power over my ego, when I confine myself to linking directly to facts so that other people can read for themselves, and make up their own minds.

As far as manipulating words, a direct quote isn't manipulation...can't say the same for your clumsy altering of what was said.

We've eliminated any chance of you contributing anything useful or even honest here.

And you've derailed the useful discourse long enough.

Buh-byyyyyye



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 12:40:51 PM)

To avoid confusion or accusations of u-turns, my entire thoughts on the subject summed up as quickly as possible.  If you disagree with anything here, NorthernGent, post up why and how.

• If someone is publishing something legal in the country they are in, I may not agree with that publication but I accept their freedom to do it.

• If someone else is offended by that publication, they should demonstrate, lobby to have the law changed and/or cry into their pillow.  They do not have the right to express their outrage by the use of violence.



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 12:55:22 PM)

Peace and Rapture



darkinshadows -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 1:13:44 PM)

Another interesting point Merc (as always)
 
I do not know the background behind this particular report - so can only base my personal thought on what is written here(and the article).  I find any call to annihilate anyone abhorant.  The people that follow - as English stated - with any use of violence (whether that is due to outrage or inciting covertly) is not acceptable.
 
In an ideal world - inciting violence would be non existant.
It isn't an ideal world.
Question is - do you see it as freedom of speach/expression - or the freedom to create genocide?
 
Is it political editorializing? Could be... without knowing the affiliation of said one couldn't answer that and even then it is an assumption.
 
Is it irony?  Wouldn't really matter - I would find it poor taste.  But thats personal preference.
 
Peace and Rapture



Mercnbeth -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 1:41:15 PM)

quote:

Question is - do you see it as freedom of speach/expression - or the freedom to create genocide?
 
Is it political editorializing? Could be... without knowing the affiliation of said one couldn't answer that and even then it is an assumption.
.dark,
Here's the key distinction. The cartoons in question were one persons idea of political commentary, irony, joke, editorial. The billboard, was government representing a government position.
 
Even I don't believe that 100% of the people of Iran believe the words or support the position represented by the billboard. But when the attacks come from Israel, the bombs won't distinguish them. When the come, the media will point to the dead and dying women, children and elderly killed. The billboard will not be remember or mentioned, yet my guess is today in Israel it's being used as yet another reason or excuse to attack Iran.
 
Then the riots and killings occurred in Amsterdam, the focus of much of the commentary wasn't on the riots or killings but on the rationalized excuse of one person's opinion of a group of people represented by a cartoon. If integrity is represented by consistency I trust the same focus will be on Iran when that attack occurs.



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 1:50:09 PM)

Bingo...'excusemongering' in defense of violence is no better than outright hatemongering to promote violence.



IronBear -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 2:21:43 PM)

One view of course is that violence instigated, authorised and condoned by a country is legal violence. Violence used in a protest against the Government of the day or the official religion (often two halves of the same token) is unless permitted by the Government, is illegal and could be construed a an armed uprising or rebelion.... Just a matter of semantics really and the justificatio depends which side you support... Ideally there is no excuse for violence but when it does errupt then violence is needed to put down violence. Ultimately humans have a thin vaneer of civilization and underneath we are all barbarians..... You really expect justice and lay & Order from Government Agencies? GB doesn't have it (I refer to the major screw ups with MI5, SIS and the Metro Special Branch), Australia doesn't have it nor does the USA.. The Government bodies are maintaining a facade of law & order and oeace onthe home front accordig the Government power brokers designs.. Forget Government for the people and by the people, in today's world it isn't going to happen



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 3:19:16 PM)

English,

Your quote on u-turns:

You say "with respect it was me who posted first that the reaction of another group is not central to the debate". Then you say "in absolutely every post I have made I have pointed out that the violence to me is the  major and over-riding issue". Surely, you can see where you're contradicting yourself?

Your quote on right-wing newspapers:

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.
 
I mentioned right-wing newspapers in probably my second post so you're way off the mark and if you read my last post you'll see why I don't feel it necessary to condemn the violence. Fell free to debate why I don't feel it necessary rather than pointing out the obvious i.e. the fact that I haven't condemned it.

This quote is your worst yet:

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?
 
That doesn't deserve any sort of comment.

Your quote:

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.
 
This is getting really tedious because you are not understanding what I am saying even though I've said it in a hundred different ways. I am saying ban it because it is divisive and is intended to incite. Again, read my posts and it is clear that I am not interested in singling out the reaction in the Muslim community as I feel it is merely a spoke in the wheel. If in your mind this means you make the giant leap to think that I advocate violence in any form then that's your call but there's no logic behind it, there's nothing I have said that should lead you to believe that - you're just pissing in the wind.

English, you are responding to my points by arguing "why aren't you condemning the violence?". I have said why on this thread so why keep going on about it. As you respond to my posts I assume you want a discussion on my posts and my opinion on what freedom of speech is all about - if so stick to what I am posting not giant leaps of judgement that have no basis.

I feel I have laid out some reasonable points on what freedom of speech is all about - feel free to sink your teeth into all of these but if you keep responding about condemning the violence I will have no option to step out of this debate because as I keep saying  IN MY OPINION THE VIOLENCE IS MERELY A SPOKE IN THE WHEEL AND I HAVE LAID OUT THE REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THIS TO BE THE CASE. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE VIOLENCE IT IS THERE IN MY POSTS IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM.

Cheers





NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 3:37:29 PM)

English:

Your quote:

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. 

I'm glad you posted this because this gets down to the nitty gritty. Just because the harm isn't physical doesn't mean it is not harm. The cartoons caused harm because they were intended to open up divisions in society - that is harm to the wider society i.e. co-existence Are you saying that you do not agree the cartoons and the publishing of them were intended to create divisions in society? or are you saying you do not believe division in society is harmful? Feel free to stay on this topic and we'll nail down where we disagree.

My quote:

a) If the cartoons had not being produced and printed there would have been nothing to react against.

Your response:

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".
 
I am really starting to believe you're not sure what you're arguing against and you're just clinging on so you don't lose face. How do you arrive at that conclusion. The fact that I point out that the cartoons came first and without the cartoons there would be nothing to react against in no way suggests I am saying if you're offended by something be violent. All I can say is that you're clutching at straws and offering no insight whatsoever.

Your quote:

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.

What you appear to be saying in that sentence is you disagree with me because you think in your words that I "tolerate violent reaction". Where did you get this from? You're making things up. I do not tolerate violence under any circumstances and for the hundredth time I HAVE LAID OUT THE REASONS WHY I THINK THERE ARE MORE DESERVING ISSUES AROUND FREEDOM OF SPEECH TO BE DISCUSSED THAN A SPOKE IN THE WHEEL.

English, you're responding to my posts because you want to debate yet you are not debating what I am saying. It doesn't make any sense.

NorthernGent



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 3:45:37 PM)

Alumbrado,

I am not talking about being offended because someone slags you off. I'm talking about a serious issue such as the intention to create divisions in society. This has far-reaching implications and is dangerous. Slagging somone off is everyday life.

The civil right I am talking about is the right for those on the receiving end of bigoted literature not to have to face that sort of nonsense. Are you American? If so, I thought you'd be well versed in the nature and importance of the civil rights movement in the 60s. If bigoted literature does not cross the threshold for you then that is your call.

NorthernGent



Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 3:57:49 PM)

I was active in the civil rights movement of the '60s, just as I am active in social justice isssues today, so you can quit wasting our time with argumentem ad hominem.

My position does not leave it up to the person being offended to claim civil rights violations based on what offends them, be it blatantly racist material, or something like being offended by inter-racial marriages or simple cartoons (and yes, there are more than a couple who will seriously argue the 'harm' to their perception of society from such)..

And I noticed you do not address the legal presumption that the person commiting the  act was not neccesarily forced to do so.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 4:03:38 PM)

Dauric,

That is a fair post putting a coherent argument together.

However, the issue isn't that Muslims should or shouldn't have the right to be offended. Concentrating on this is not doing the divisive nature of bigoted reporting justice.

The issue is that this sort of reporting is intended to create divisions in society. It is harmful to all citizens in society, regardless of race, religion etc with the exception of the xenophobes who thrive on racial tension. You end up with communties who distrust each other and that can't be good for society. The sole aim of far-right politics has been to create divisions within society. We have it here with the BNP who turn up in areas of high unemployment and areas with a high concentration of ethnic minorities hoping to create divisions in society by preying on people's fears and insecurities. Surely, this is not right? Surely, we should be saying if there are any actions (including speech) that are intended to create such divsions we have a duty to prevent them? These divisions will end in murder, no doubt about it. We see it all over England - all because two communities distrust each other and are suspicious of each other partly as a result of prejudice from the media and far-right groups.

There is a much bigger picture than violence here. Violence is merely a symptom of a divisive society and is a spoke in the wheel. Violence does not operate in a vacuum - it is a response to a series of conditions.

NorthernGent




NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 4:12:00 PM)

Alumbrado,

I am not arguing that it is a personal choice whether or not civil rights boundaries are being crossed - where exactly did you get this from? There is a Government elected ultimately to dictate what does or doesn't cross boundaries of civil rights.

Where did I say a person commiting an act is necessarily forced to do so? What point are you making?

And your quote:

"quit wasting our time"
 
Are you trying to score points here or do you genuinely suffer from a lack of manners?

NorthernGent



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 4:24:18 PM)

I edited this because as you pointed out NorthernGent, it was too wordy.

• If someone is publishing something legal in the country they are in, I may not agree with that publication but I accept their freedom to do it.

• If someone else is offended by that publication, they should demonstrate, lobby to have the law changed and/or cry into their pillow.  They do not have the right to express their outrage by the use of violence.

That's my standpoint on the thread regarding freedom of expression, the Danish cartoons, the response by some Muslims and violence in general

Please post yours.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 4:28:47 PM)

English,

In truth, I read your first 2 lines and honestly, I've lost interest and it will be my last post.

Regards



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 4:33:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

English,

In truth, I read your first 2 lines and honestly, I've lost interest and it will be my last post.

Regards


If you want to debate other aspects of freedom of expression, there really isn't anything stopping you from creating your own thread to do so. 

It's you that attempted to take things off topic, NorthernGent, not other people.  Because for all your posting on this one, I would guess most people still have no idea what your opinion is.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 5:03:04 PM)

English,

It's not personal or anything so don't take it that way and I posted on this thread because it is an interesting topic but life is just too short to go through the same points over and over again - and I wasn't trying to say I wasn't interested in what you have to say - more that for whatever reason you're not getting me (maybe I'm not explaining myself very well). You show this by saying you're not sure what my opinion is. It is there in black and white, repeatedly.

As said, there is absolutely no point in us going through this as I'm personally starting to know what it's like to be a hamster on a wheel and I'm sure you feel the same.

The mature thing to do is just draw a line under it and move on - between us we've probably chalked up a thousand posts on this and if I can't get my point across in that many posts then I nver will.

Regards.



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/25/2006 5:18:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

English,

It's not personal or anything so don't take it that way and I posted on this thread because it is an interesting topic but life is just too short to go through the same points over and over again - and I wasn't trying to say I wasn't interested in what you have to say - more that for whatever reason you're not getting me (maybe I'm not explaining myself very well). You show this by saying you're not sure what my opinion is. It is there in black and white, repeatedly.

As said, there is absolutely no point in us going through this as I'm personally starting to know what it's like to be a hamster on a wheel and I'm sure you feel the same.

The mature thing to do is just draw a line under it and move on - between us we've probably chalked up a thousand posts on this and if I can't get my point across in that many posts then I nver will.

Regards.


No problem, I think because your posts were spread over such a wide area it would take too long to go back and extract your viewpoint from them, which is why I posted mine in a single posting, to give you the opportunity to do the same.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/26/2006 12:00:09 AM)

English,

I already posted what I believe to be two central questions and the response was almost like people were responding to a completely different post - the grasp of what I was saying was that far out. Also, my very first post was about as close as I can get to condensing a very complex issue into a few paragraphs. So, again, it is there in black and white.

Cheers



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

Valid CSS!




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