RE: Freedom of Expression (Full Version)

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



Message

Level -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 4:48:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Level,

Look, we're really not on the same wavelength. No point continuing this.

NorthernGent


LOL.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 4:50:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Level,

Look, we're really not on the same wavelength. No point continuing this.

NorthernGent


So much for freedom of speach. Just don't argue a point!

I forgot the smilies.[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]



Level -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 4:53:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Level,

Look, we're really not on the same wavelength. No point continuing this.

NorthernGent


So much for freedom of speach. Just don't argue a point!

I forgot the smilies.[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]


Careful, Meatcleaver, or he'll call you uncivilised [:D]



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 4:55:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

EnglishDomNW,

Here is my two penneth into the equation:

Let me start by saying freedom of speech is tantamount to any civilisation. But, there is a but. When speech is intended to incite racial tension (as the cartoons were - The Jutland Post, Die Welt and Le Soir, the papers who initially printed the cartoons, are all Conservative rags with an anti-Muslim agenda) then that speech is dangerous and should not be allowed.

The mark of a truly civilised society is freedom of speech with limits. How can blatant disrespect of another culture/race be civilised and allowed to go unchecked?

For those who don't know the implied meaning of the cartoons - the cartoonist charted the life of Islam and implied that the natural conclusion of Islam is terrorism.

Ultimately, this sort of newspaper reporting is dangerous and similar to the Nazi depiction of Jews. The Nazis depicted the Jews as parasites and right-wing Europeans are now depicting Muslims as terrorists - the end statement is the same - both the Nazis and today's right-wing Europeans are saying the Jews and Muslims are not worthy of European status.

NorthernGent




You can't define what a truely civilised society is, you can argue what a 'truely civilised society' should be in your eyes.

And for the record, I totally disagree with you.



missturbation -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 5:12:58 PM)

I want to censor every1s speech so they can only say really nice things about me but i can still say what i want lol.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 5:13:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

Careful, Meatcleaver, or he'll call you uncivilised [:D]


I have my moments Level. I have my moments.[;)]

I've just got to check if these jack boots still fit.



Invictus754 -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 5:13:56 PM)

[FastReply]
 
Re: Religious Cartoons.  Any religion that advocates or encourages any type of violence as retribution to something that is done, written or said should be crushed into non-existence.  [Unfortunately, that is all of them.] 
 
Freedom of speech is absolute.  You have the ability to say whatever you wish, whenever you wish. However, if one chooses to speak freely, one may have to suffer the consequences of the society in which you live for doing so.  If your country won't let you speak your mind the way you like - move to another country.  If militia won't let you leave, you better learn to keep your mouth shut, or enjoy the consequences.
 
"Offense" is another creature altogether.  No one has to be offended by anything; they choose to be offended.  Whether it is upbringing or schooling or society, being offended is a learned trait.  If anyone says, "I am offended" the correct answer should be "That is your choice - get over it." 
 
 



missturbation -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 5:14:29 PM)

oi this thread is all about saying nice things about me now. I restricted ur speech lol



NeedToUseYou -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 8:19:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnglishDomNW

(I hope this doesn't turn into a left-wing/right-wing slanging match)

I'm curious to hear views on what is acceptable freedom of expression.  I'm mainly thinking back to the Danish publication of the Mohammed cartoons but also Iran's retaliatory response where their national newspaper ran a contest to find "The best Holocaust cartoon" with gold coins for the first prize.  And Salman Rushdie's book "The Satanic Verses" which as far as I'm aware, still leaves him under "death on sight" by religious fanatics.

Given that so much violence and death arose from such events, do you feel freedom of expression should carry legally enforceable responsibility or that it should be absolute regardless of consequence?


I think it's idiotic, personally. I don't think regular citizens or businesses should have many restrictions on their freedom of speech. Once we start saying certain areas are off limits then it's a slow downward spiral. We already do this, for all the wrong reasons. The logic is if you restrict printed and public display of certain ideas somehow they will go away. That doesn't really work. I'd prefer to know where people stand instead of forcing them behind closed doors, where the really dangerous ideas get formulated.

Those cartoons just exposed that there are people who think all Islamic people are terrorists, and the reaction just exposed how radically sensitive a large percentage of the Islamic world is. 

People need to grow up and stop getting offended all the time. Hell, I watch on T.V. , groups getting made fun of or making fun of themselves and laughing about it, that is the mark of a civilized person/society, not restricting speech and expression. Hell, I think if I couldn't say something, I'd be more apt to say it. It's that whole thing of being controlled, that manifests in rebellion.

Pretty much the only restriction I'd put into place, was giving away military secrets, trad secrets etc.,  limits on obstructing public places with any rants. Why would it bother me that some think all conservatives are evil. I read that up here every day. LOL. Seems the same thing as saying all Muslims are terrorists. Grow up, I say, Some people are just stupid, you really can't make a law against that.

Just my take on it.





IronBear -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/21/2006 9:17:20 PM)

Fast Reply to the thread and not to any one person.

If you try to make offensive or derogatory comments to or about me,and depending on my mood, I'll probably find something in it in which I can agree with to piss you off and something else about which I can laugh. If your comments cause me personal real physical harm (such as inciting some clown to try to harm me) I'll harm you in a like manner three fold. If you comments harm or cause others to harm my family I shall remove your ability to excersise speech. Simple isn't it? I can behave excelently in "civilised" company, just never forget I'm a barbarian through and through.. 



EnglishDomNW -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 1:45:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

EnglishDomNW,

Here is my two penneth into the equation:

Let me start by saying freedom of speech is tantamount to any civilisation. But, there is a but. When speech is intended to incite racial tension (as the cartoons were - The Jutland Post, Die Welt and Le Soir, the papers who initially printed the cartoons, are all Conservative rags with an anti-Muslim agenda) then that speech is dangerous and should not be allowed.


Hmmmm.  Shortly after the printing of the cartoons, the Independent in the UK showed a picture of a God smoking a cigar, directly opposite the report from Denmark.

It prompted this letter from Laure Locke in Norwich.


Sir: So, The Independent did not publish the Danish cartoons because " there is no merit in causing gratuitous offence, as these cartoons undoubtedly do" (leading article, 4 January). Just so. That would explain then the cartoon on your facing page of a foul-mouthed God smoking a cigar.

To me and to several million more Christians in this country God is dear and precious beyond words. The fact that you know this perfectly well and still publish shows that it is not sensitivity that guides your decision not to publish the similar cartoons about Mohamed but fear of a violent reaction, a reaction you know you have no cause to anticipate from the Christian community.

So cut the pompous explanations: the fact is you're running scared.
 
To date, I have yet to see a single demonstration, violent uprising, backlash or message board outrage about that picture.  I'm not saying the publication of either picture was right or wrong but I find it hard to agree that something shouldn't be published because a violent reaction might occur.  That, in anyone's eyes, is not freedom but intimidation.

quote:




The mark of a truly civilised society is freedom of speech with limits. How can blatant disrespect of another culture/race be civilised and allowed to go unchecked?

For those who don't know the implied meaning of the cartoons - the cartoonist charted the life of Islam and implied that the natural conclusion of Islam is terrorism.

Ultimately, this sort of newspaper reporting is dangerous and similar to the Nazi depiction of Jews. The Nazis depicted the Jews as parasites and right-wing Europeans are now depicting Muslims as terrorists - the end statement is the same - both the Nazis and today's right-wing Europeans are saying the Jews and Muslims are not worthy of European status.

I can't help wondering if you'd feel equally outraged at the Independent picture of God.  If you weren't aware of its existence, that surely ought to tell you something about the Christian community as a whole.  If they had published a picture of Mohammed smoking a cigar, the UK would probably still be on fire.



Arpig -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:19:49 AM)

Fast reply

The Danish cartoon brouhaha was ridiculous, and Personally after the Iranians started screaming about it, I thought the cartoon should have been reprinted in every damned paper in the world, just to let the mullahs know that we won't be intimidated, and that when push comes to shove we don't particularly care if they are offended or not.
They really need to grow up, it was a satirical cartoon for fuck's sake!



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:21:50 AM)

meatcleaver,

Your quote:

So much for freedom of speach. Just don't argue a point!

I forgot the smilies.[sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]
 
Hmmmmm, I smell a man desperate to jump in and find a chink in the armour after the mauling he received on racism. However, judging by your comment above you have misunderstood me as follows:

The reason why I am not arguing the point with level is because a) based on his comment, he obviously didn't understand the point I was making and b) he reduced it to a self-pitying comment about the US when the cartoons and anti-muslin rhetoric in Europe is a serious issue that deserves far more insight than was given by the said poster. Thus, there is no point in discussing this with someone who is arguing against something he thinks I said and wants to reduce it to play-ground politics.

Now, in the last dictionary I looked in the above would be qualified as not giving a flying one rather than trying to stifle any speech. As far as I'm concerned, Level can ramble on til the cows come home - no skin off my nose.

You don't agree? Congratulations.





Level -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:27:58 AM)

You might want to get that dictionary back out and look up "smug". If I misunderstood, then get off your high-horse and explain yourself.
 
And as I stated, there's no self-pity here; it's obvious you think you're scoring points by saying that, but you're not, you're only showing yourself to be not on the same wave-length.



Arpig -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:30:29 AM)

Actually NGent, it was you who missed the point.

In your original post you said:
quote:

The mark of a truly civilised society is freedom of speech with limits. How can blatant disrespect of another culture/race be civilised and allowed to go unchecked?


Level pointed out that right here on a BDSM board there are many many things posted that are blatantly disrespectful of the US, not just the policies of the present Gvt.

You brushed that off as "self-pity". He was making a point, that you either missed entirely, or chose to ignore. It is apparently an heinous & grievous thing to poke fun at muslims, blacks, whatever-minority-you-wish, yet to do the same thing to the US (or to the West, or Europe) is just peachy-keen.

Sorry NorthernGent, but your stance is hypocritical.



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:33:58 AM)

Invictus,

If Hitler had been shut down in the 1920s Jewish and Eurpean history may have been so different. If the Yugoslav leaders had not been allowed to go unchecked then the Balkans region may not have suffered the genocide it did.

Mass genocide does not begin at mass genocide. It has a starting point and that starting point is inflammatory rhetoric. From there it spirals out of control. The Germans and Yugoslavs are no more inherently racist than the rest of us. More the case that under the wrong conditions racism can flourish and spiral out of control and you end up with this sort of mass genocide. Granted, it doesn't happen very often but the consequences are such that we have a duty to nip it in the bud as early as possible.

I would imagine any German Jew alive in inter-war Germany would have benefiited greatly from Hitler been shutdown in the 1920s and it is a classic case of things spiralling out of control. The Germans Jews were well integrated in German society (unlike say the Russisn Jews) and when Hitler first got a foothold they believed it would blow over and German society would not stand for his sort of nonsense but things slowly but surely escalated - from rhetoric, to bans on shops, to burning books, to murder to mass genocide.

Ultimately, 1) Those cartoons were pure bad manners 2) More importantly, that sort of reporting is dangerous.

NorthernGent



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 3:49:52 AM)

EnglishDomNW,

Based on your last post, you are talking about two issues:

1) Should the cartoons have been printed.
2) Was the reaction to the caroons in the muslim world justified.

As yet, I haven't attempted to discuss anything about number 2 as I thought your original post was about freedom of speech not the reaction to anti-muslim rhetoric.

In terms of number 1, I never said anything about stifling speech because of the reaction in the muslim world. My opinion is this sort of speech needs to be nipped in the bud because it can spiral out of control in the arena the speech was given i.e. Europe. It is not inconceivable that today's European Muslims may become 1930s European Jews - that is why this sort of rhetoric is not on.

Your point on God with a cigar:

The cartoons and God with a cigar are totally different. The former was intended to incite racial tension. What was the intent of the latter? Put it this way, it is nowhere near as dangerous. We already have problems in Europe with anti-Muslim sentiment, the last thing we need is the flames stoking.

Your point on the UK burning:

That is the media image of Islam. In actual fact, in the UK, 200 muslims demonstrated aggressivley against the cartoons. An extremely small percentage of British muslims and hardly the stuff of mass terror.

NorthernGent



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 4:00:30 AM)

Arpig,

No it is not hypocritical at all. Unless I completely misread EnglishNWDom's original post he wanted a discussion around the cartoons. The merits of anti-US sentiment is a totally different arena with totally different causes and connotations.

NorthernGent



NorthernGent -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 4:09:13 AM)

Every society needs law, rules and a governing body to enforce this law when people step out of line. Otherwise, we would be reduced to a pack of animals all trying to eat each other. We need policemen, lawyers, teachers, prison wardens etc for a very good reason - and that is to maintain a civilised society. Thus, rules are required around many things - from acts of violence, to theft to speech.



meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom of Expression (7/22/2006 4:16:23 AM)

I don't agree with your analysis, it's too simplistic. For many reasons anti-semitism was rife in Europe and that wasn't something begun by Hitler in the 20s, it was far deeper than that. He was saying something many people wanted to hear. The reason should be asked why so many people wanted to hear it. It wasn't that Hitler wasn't shut up that was the problem, it was that no one really disagreed with him so your argument is irrelevant.

It was the humiliation heaped upon Germany by the allies and mainly France with their occupation of Alsace after WWI that made the conditions where this latent anti-semitism could ferment. This led to the German population wanting to find a scapegoat for their misery and impotency and the Jews were conveniently there to blame.

However, those that would speak out were conveniently shut up by Hitler which is what I think you are inclined to do with people that disagree with your analysis.

And just who was going to shut these Yugoslavian leaders up? Don't tell me the Americans because if they interfered you would have been one of the first to burn the stars and strips for their interference in another country's affairs. If you remember what actually happened it was Germany giving Craotia the wink that it would be allowed by the rest of Europe to claim its independence and that is what brought the roof down. However, how are you supposed to stop people who want to self destruct. Both the Croat leadership and the Serb leadership had the support of their respective populations. If there was any problem in the Balkens it was lack of vigorous debate!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Invictus,

If Hitler had been shut down in the 1920s Jewish and Eurpean history may have been so different. If the Yugoslav leaders had not been allowed to go unchecked then the Balkans region may not have suffered the genocide it did.

Mass genocide does not begin at mass genocide. It has a starting point and that starting point is inflammatory rhetoric. From there it spirals out of control. The Germans and Yugoslavs are no more inherently racist than the rest of us. More the case that under the wrong conditions racism can flourish and spiral out of control and you end up with this sort of mass genocide. Granted, it doesn't happen very often but the consequences are such that we have a duty to nip it in the bud as early as possible.

I would imagine any German Jew alive in inter-war Germany would have benefiited greatly from Hitler been shutdown in the 1920s and it is a classic case of things spiralling out of control. The Germans Jews were well integrated in German society (unlike say the Russisn Jews) and when Hitler first got a foothold they believed it would blow over and German society would not stand for his sort of nonsense but things slowly but surely escalated - from rhetoric, to bans on shops, to burning books, to murder to mass genocide.

Ultimately, 1) Those cartoons were pure bad manners 2) More importantly, that sort of reporting is dangerous.

NorthernGent



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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