RE: Freedom of Expression

It isnt about the minority - it is about the bigotry any minority or majority is subjected to and in the UK (sorry - just using UK as an example as that seems to be the topic here on this particualr response) - muslims, being a minority are subjected to incredible racial abuse - that part is undeniable and coming from and being raised in an area that I was a minority in retrospect, I saw that every day.

Inciting the violence is what the cartoon was achieving and is a basic human right infringment. One is not less than the other.

I'm sorry, this is so ludicrous it actually made me laugh.

Of course one is less than the other.

Of course viewing a cartoon that offends you is less than murder.

Of course viewing a cartoon is less than burning down a house, threatening to behead someone or throwing rocks at people.

This apologetic nonsense deserves all the derision it gets. If you're offended by a cartoon, you demonstrate. You boycott. You can, if possible, attempt to get the law changed. You don't KILL people. Please remain in the realms of reality and stop excusing violence because someone was religiously offended by a cartoon for heaven's sake.

While you're excusing this violence, you're also giving a green light to anyone that gets offended by something to use violence as a reaction. For someone that has "Peace and rapture" as her signature, you should probably review your own opinions.

You know how much I love your posts [:)] -

I can only respond for the way I read each post - so I am not saying this is exactly what NG was getting at, but its my interpretation.

I realised you were not getting your drawers in a knot...(although my own imagination had you in some rather neat tight boxers actually....[;)]) My interpretation was that he agreed with you on the US point, and thats why He didnt feel the need to continue as you were basically reaching the same goal - even if the paths were a little different.

No, they don't. If John Doe is a child molester, he doesn't get a free pass because I don't accept his choice of lifestyle. Yeah, I know, that's a radical example, but a valid one.

The John Doe example is a radical - but excellent example of basic human rights /freedom of expression - I completely agree and HR insists that others rights are not infringed upon by ones personal rights. That is where the 'respect' comes into the equasion.

I agree, and I can't figure out why Northern Gent hates us.

Now, I don't hate him. Don't know him. Disagreement is not hate.

I really didnt see how He 'hates' you - again, I havent read the racism thread so I have no idea on the history between any of you there - I am simply working on this thread and prefere not to be clouded by other threads(even though someone is trying to desperately get me to be) - and again, you are completely correct, disagreement isnt hate - and I respect you deeply for your wisdom on knowing the difference between disagreement/discussion and others trying to incite arguments. Maybe I can see links between the posts that maybe others can't see. Or maybe I am just having a bit of wishful thinking and playing the part of peacemaker...[;)]

So - wheres the mauling - seriously? On this thread? Or on another?

Hmm... yes I can see how I may have misrepresented what I meant. My apology.

I did not mean a cartoon with violence. 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. Does that make explaination make stance clearer?

*opps...edit - thank you for taking the time to explain about the racism thread

You just showed you didnt understand a word of my post. Must be my 'pedantic over articulate - over educated ' responses you moan at me about that you obviously don't have the intellect to understand.[;)]

quote:

While you're excusing this violence, you're also giving a green light to anyone that gets offended by something to use violence as a reaction. For someone that has "Peace and rapture" as her signature, you should probably review your own opinions.

I didn't excuse the violence so I would be grateful if you didnt twist words and maybe tried relying on the truth instead of trying to misrepresent what is actually written and taking complete posts out of context.

(moans about the bloody send key)

You know how much I love your posts [:)] -

Hello to you, pretty lady, and thank you [;)]. I enjoy you as well.

Agreed. I was using comments against America as an example, it wasn't a matter of my drawers getting in a knot.

I don't think he agreed with anything that came out of my mouth, hence his attempts at dismissing me. Of course he doesn't have to explain or respond to anything I say, but I know I would offer explanation to someone who asked for it, or didn't seem to be "getting it".

quote:

No, they don't. If John Doe is a child molester, he doesn't get a free pass because I don't accept his choice of lifestyle. Yeah, I know, that's a radical example, but a valid one.

Respect is a wonderful thing, and if there were more of it in the world, we might very well be better off. But I would hold up one's right to disrespectful, in order for them to have freedom of expression.

quote:

I agree, and I can't figure out why Northern Gent hates us.

[:)]

Now, I don't hate him. Don't know him. Disagreement is not hate.

I was just teasing when I said he "hates" me or anyone else; again, I don't know him, but I would be very surprised if anyone on this side of the discussion hates him, either.

Tight boxers, huh.... [:D]

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:

Tight boxers, huh.... [:D]

Well, I could have been more honest - I admit - and said naked - but that might infringe on your basic human right...[;)][:D]

quote:

Tight boxers, huh.... [:D]

Well, I could have been more honest - I admit - and said naked - but that might infringe on your basic human right...[;)][:D]

quote:

Tight boxers, huh.... [:D]

Well, I could have been more honest - I admit - and said naked - but that might infringe on your basic human right...[;)][:D]

Oh my - now there's an offer I just cannot refuse... can we dance off (again) into the sunset?

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.

Yes, we agree to disagree - but you have picked out a key issue on Freedom of Expression, which is your thread after all. If one truely wants freedom of expression to be a basic human right - one has to take human rights issues into consideration - One does not exist without the other, else there would be anarchy.

It is firing the first bullet and not hitting someone - then blaming the other side for inflicting the first casualty.

quote:

Being from a religious faith does not give you licence to murder someone that offends you no matter how many times you post on here and make excuses for it.

Indeed it doesn't. Any murder in my opinion, isn't acceptable. Nor are images that incite hatred of any kind.