Does this offend?

[Big Booger]

http://religion.info/artman/uploads/0222_jyllands-posten.jpg

Complete list of those cartoons:

http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/index.php?p=133


Just curious what your opinions are on this matter...

Are you pro-freedom of speech or do you think there should be limits?

This is not about the politics or religion of the world... it is about your opinion of the freedom of speech.

Are you pro freedom of speech or do you think that there are some topics that shouldn't be allowed?

Please don't make this a political debate or it will be deleted. Discuss your opinion about freedom of speech. Thanks.

[Denyse]

There was a discussion at a nearby university this evening. It was on this and similar subjects. The consensus of the group, made up of students representing 34 countries and 8 religions, that political humor should be taken with a grain of salt.

Shown were images much more offensive than anything you presented.

Two students, one was from Isreal, and the other was from Saudi Arabia both agreed that the problem comes from the news media whom has an agenda to see who can create the greatest sensationalism.

I had to agree with them. The news media no longer feels they just need to REPORT the news; but feel they must CREATE it as well.

[rohitk89]

I don't like the typecasting. Freedom of speech is wonderful but there should be a limit. It must not be abused.

Because I'm not a Sikh I'm not offended but I'm sure some of my friends here would take offense if they saw those cartoons.

[PIPER]

I tend to agree with Denyse.....but some people in this world lack a sense of humor.....more so today than at most periods throughout History....Do a little research.....look at different periods in our lifetime....or the history we are familiar with......WWI.....WWII....Korea.....Vietnam....etc etc etc....political satire....blah blah blah.....will there ever be harmony with all people throughout the world....never.....and sad it is.....with freedom of speech and freedom of the press as we know it, the key or operative word here is freedom....free to go to your workplace of choice without the fear of a plane slamming into your office...killing thousands, freedom to worship as we choose, freedom to speak what we feel without persecution or write the same, or in this case draw a little humor. Is this not what our Country is all about?...for anyone who lives here no matter where they originate from.....could go on and on without making it political....it's a form of humor....how we see it....is another point.

[Nikto]

I agree with today's leader in the Guardian: publishing such cartoons is gratuitously offensive:
http://tinyurl.com/76cqk
I also agree with 'The Wege' (scroll down - some may find his language not to their taste):
http://tinyurl.com/8xogn
It's worth pointing out that in the US the Joint Chiefs of Staff just sent a menacing letter to the Washington Post. Over...a cartoon:
http://tinyurl.com/b7uya
And, of course, Cindy Sheehan was thrown out of the SOTU for wearing a T-shirt with the question: "2245 Dead. How many more?” (seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me):
"‘I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things…I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for “unlawful conduct.”
The Capitol Police acknowledged later that there was no legal basis for removing, let alone arresting, Cindy Sheehan: to the contrary, they admitted that they screwed up because Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws:
http://tinyurl.com/b6xse
Freedom of speech in the US is a thing of the past, to be remembered fondly.

[Big Booger]

I agree with today's leader in the Guardian: publishing such cartoons is gratuitously offensive:
http://tinyurl.com/76cqk
I also agree with 'The Wege' (scroll down - some may find his language not to their taste):
http://tinyurl.com/8xogn
It's worth pointing out that in the US the Joint Chiefs of Staff just sent a menacing letter to the Washington Post. Over...a cartoon:
http://tinyurl.com/b7uya
And, of course, Cindy Sheehan was thrown out of the SOTU for wearing a T-shirt with the question: "2245 Dead. How many more?” (seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me):
"‘I was never told that I couldn’t wear that shirt into the Congress. I was never asked to take it off or zip my jacket back up. If I had been asked to do any of those things…I would have, and written about the suppression of my freedom of speech later. I was immediately, and roughly (I have the bruises and muscle spasms to prove it) hauled off and arrested for “unlawful conduct.”
The Capitol Police acknowledged later that there was no legal basis for removing, let alone arresting, Cindy Sheehan: to the contrary, they admitted that they screwed up because Sheehan didn't violate any rules or laws:
http://tinyurl.com/b6xse
Freedom of speech in the US is a thing of the past, to be remembered fondly.


Niki,
I thought I made it apparently clear that this was a discussion about your opinion of freedom of speech, not about US, UK, Muslim, Terrorists, Bali Bombers, IRA rebel leaders, Stewie from Family Guys' animation...

It was about your take on freedom of speech. Just offer an opinion, no need to back it up with a politically cited dissertation on the worldly violations of speech across the globe. A simple personal well-worded sentence will suffice.

THe question was and still is:

Are you pro freedom of speech or do you think that there are some topics that shouldn't be allowed?

Again, no political wing wang will be tolerated.

[Nate89]

not to sound like an ass or anything here BB because i like you and all of the TZ people here but if you didnt want people posting links and such then maybe you shouldnt have posted the two that you did it kind of leads people on in a sense to post their own which was just proven by nikto....i could be totally off base here but thats just how im viewing this little problem right now

[Nikto]

Niki,
I thought I made it apparently clear that this was a discussion about your opinion of freedom of speech, not about US, UK, Muslim, Terrorists, Bali Bombers, IRA rebel leaders, Stewie from Family Guys' animation...

I hate to break it to you, BB, but I didn't even mention US, UK, Muslim, Terrorists, Bali Bombers, IRA rebel leaders or Stewie from Family Guys' animation. I know it's just a small point, but it does seem to matter. What I did mention was the lack of freedom of speech in the US. This seems to have escaped your attention.

[zipp51]

I think all topics should be discussed,so yes I am pro freedom of speech.:D However,one must obey the rules of the audience to which you are speaking lest you have no one to listen to you.:D

[Denyse]

Chinese Cookie says.

if one does not worms loose, do not open the can

[Big Booger]

not to sound like an ass or anything here BB because i like you and all of the TZ people here but if you didnt want people posting links and such then maybe you shouldnt have posted the two that you did it kind of leads people on in a sense to post their own which was just proven by nikto....i could be totally off base here but thats just how im viewing this little problem right now

I never said anything about not posting links, I just was hoping this post could be about your own personal opinions. The two links I posted were not to back-up my opinion. I didn't cite them as evidence of why I am correct, or you are wrong or as a citation of my opinion.

The links I posted were aimed at getting your opinion from the cartoons.

A political thread this is not. I never posted a single thing about any country. I asked simply what your opinion is on freedom of speech using a cartoon that is in the hot seat at this moment.

I hate to break it to you, BB, but I didn't even mention US, UK, Muslim, Terrorists, Bali Bombers, IRA rebel leaders or Stewie from Family Guys' animation. I know it's just a small point, but it does seem to matter. What I did mention was the lack of freedom of speech in the US. This seems to have escaped your attention.

And Nikto, why not list the lack of freedom of speech in the world? Why must it be so centered on the US? Have all the other countries escaped your attention? Why can't you just give an opinion without all the animosity or subversive attack?

Denyse and Rohit got the concept, I think.

[Denyse]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/DOCOM/an/2dff9a2e.gif

[PIPER]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/DOCOM/an/2dff9a2e.gif
:cool:

[PIPER]

http://www.techzonez.com/forums/images/attach/gif.gif

[Curio]

To have an opinion on something you must go through a process to form that opinion. If you are not allowed to discuss certain topics then you cannot form an opinion but must therefore inherit someone elses opinion - the one that told you it was taboo.

Freedom of speech may not always be easy but it is obviously a necessity unless you want somebody else to dictate or restrict your opinions.

[Nikto]

To have an opinion on something you must go through a process to form that opinion. If you are not allowed to discuss certain topics then you cannot form an opinion but must therefore inherit someone elses opinion - the one that told you it was taboo.
This isn't about "discussion". The Danish newspaper didn't discuss Muslim beliefs or anything else. They published a series of cartoons knowing full well that in doing so they would cause offence to Muslims, and sure enough they did just that. Which brings us back to BB's original question: "Does this offend?" Of course it offends. It's bleeding obvious that it offends, and the newspaper knew it would offend. Look: if you knew that Muslims don't eat pork and you gave a Muslim bacon and eggs for breakfast you'd be doing so in the full knowledge that you would cause offence. You have every right to do so, but in doing so you'd prove yourself to be, at best, an insensitive dimwit.

I eat pork and I drink alcohol, but I've never offered a Muslim with whom I work a bacon sarnie or asked him to come to the local boozer even though I'm perfectly free to do so. Were I to do so it would be gratuitously offensive, just the same as publishing the cartoons was gratuitously offensive.

[Big Booger]

This isn't about "discussion". The Danish newspaper didn't discuss Muslim beliefs or anything else. They published a series of cartoons knowing full well that in doing so they would cause offence to Muslims, and sure enough they did just that. Which brings us back to BB's original question: "Does this offend?" Of course it offends. It's bleeding obvious that it offends, and the newspaper knew it would offend. Look: if you knew that Muslims don't eat pork and you gave a Muslim bacon and eggs for breakfast you'd be doing so in the full knowledge that you would cause offence. You have every right to do so, but in doing so you'd prove yourself to be, at best, an insensitive dimwit.

I eat pork and I drink alcohol, but I've never offered a Muslim with whom I work a bacon sarnie or asked him to come to the local boozer even though I'm perfectly free to do so. Were I to do so it would be gratuitously offensive, just the same as publishing the cartoons was gratuitously offensive.


Bravo Nikto. Excellent post!

[z3n]

Are you pro-freedom of speech or do you think there should be limits? - Please don't make this a political debate or it will be deleted.

:rofl2:

[Denyse]

You're not drunk until you can't lay on the floor without holding on.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/DOCOM/Fs/f47ad55d.gif

[rik]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/05/we_are_all_danes_now/

We are all Danes now
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 5, 2006

HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.
------------------
It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.
-------------------
The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam. Jyllands-Posten, Denmark's largest daily, commissioned the cartoons to make a point about freedom of speech. It was protesting the climate of intimidation that had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for his children's book about Mohammed. No artist would agree to illustrate the book for fear of being harmed by Muslim extremists. Appalled by this self-censorship, Jyllands-Posten invited Danish artists to submit drawings of Mohammed, and published the 12 it received.

Most of the pictures are tame to the point of dullness, especially compared to the biting editorial cartoons that routinely appear in US and European newspapers. A few of them link Mohammed to Islamist terrorism -- one depicts him with a bomb in his turban, while a second shows him in Heaven, pleading with newly arrived suicide terrorists: ''Stop, stop! We have run out of virgins!" Others focus on the threat to free speech: In one, a sweating artist sits at his drawing board, nervously sketching Mohammed, while glancing over his shoulder to make sure he's not being watched.

That anything so mild could trigger a reaction so crazed -- riots, death threats, kidnappings, flag-burnings -- speaks volumes about the chasm that separates the values of the civilized world from those in too much of the Islamic world. Freedom of the press, the marketplace of ideas, the right to skewer sacred cows: Militant Islam knows none of this. And if the jihadis get their way, it will be swept aside everywhere by the censorship and intolerance of sharia.

Here and there, some brave Muslim voices have cried out against the book-burners. The Jordanian newspaper Shihan published three of the cartoons. ''Muslims of the world, be reasonable," implored Shihan's editor, Jihad al-Momani, in an editorial. ''What brings more prejudice against Islam -- these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras?" But within hours Momani was out of a job, fired by the paper's owners after the Jordanian government threatened legal action.

He wasn't the only editor sacked last week. In Paris, Jacques LeFranc of the daily France Soir was also fired after running the Mohammed cartoons. The paper's owner, an Egyptian Copt named Raymond Lakah, issued a craven and Orwellian statement offering LeFranc's head as a gesture of ''respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual." But the France Soir staff defended their decision to publish the drawings in a stalwart editorial. ''The best way to fight against censorship is to prevent censorship from happening," they wrote. ''A fundamental principle guaranteeing democracy and secular society is under threat. To say nothing is to retreat."

Across the continent, nearly two dozen other newspapers have joined in defending that principle. While Islamist clerics proclaim an ''international day of anger" or declare that ''the war has begun," leading publications in Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic have reprinted the Danish cartoons. But there has been no comparable show of backbone in America, where (as of Friday) only the New York Sun has had the fortitude to the run some of the drawings.
-------------------
Make no mistake: This story is not going away, and neither is the Islamofascist threat. The freedom of speech we take for granted is under attack, and it will vanish if it is not bravely defended. Today the censors may be coming for some unfunny Mohammed cartoons, but tomorrow it is your words and ideas they will silence. Like it or not, we are all Danes now.

[jan]

Very well said. Thanks for that rik.

[z3n]

Being an artist myself I am generally against heavy censorship.

However I also believe we cannot be devoid of social responsibility.

EG. racism, domestic violence.. etc etc...

So I also believe there are definitely limits which fall within the parameters of respect and moral standards.

The big question is not "IF" we should have a line, but where should it be drawn.

[rik]

z3n, I agree wholeheartedly. For once...:rolleyes:






;)

[jan]

Well therein lies the prob for the left. Who is to be the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong? For one thing they have a very difficult time seeing any "black or white". Its mostly very "grey" for them. The prob is that they are sooooo worried that THEY (personally) willed be "judged" if anybody comes up with such a definition. They really dont understand the varying meanings and applications of that (judge) word. Its kinda like holding up a cross to dracula. So in the process the libs have had to retreat to a perpetual state of moral relativism. Its really facinating to watch. But its also quite unfortunate and dangerous. Because this is one of the many, many fallouts. And it effects all of us.

[Nikto]

Very well said. Thanks for that rik.
Well, it would be kinda nice if anything rik said was rik's own words. You know, just one word, just one, instead of an entire, verbatim quote. Still, if it's good enough for rik, it's good enough for me, so here, again, is 'the wege':
Ass®ocket’s busy comparing Muslims to Lutherans today.

Not content with straw men, wingnuts are setting up straw clerics. Well, the straw’s not a bad idea given the way they fling **** around, but this analogy is deeply flawed.

Angry Muslims ≠ Lutherans. Angry Muslims = angry wingnuts. Most of the mob isn’t going to do anything more than tip a few cars over and burn some Danish flags, or about what you’d expect in a college town after the local university wins a major sports championship.

The terroristic aspect of the anti-Danish protests is matched by all the truly frightening nutjobs that stand behind our Ass®ockets: the Aryan Nation, the Minutemen, Christian Identity, etc.

Muslim terrorists murder a Catholic priest in Turkey? Well, American terrorists assassinated an abortion clinic doctor.

No, the equivalency here isn’t with Christianity. It’s with hard right ideology founded in racism, just as bin Laden’s beliefs are rooted in sharia. No, Republicans aren’t America’s Taliban, but, like the villagers in western Pakistan, some of them shield our Taliban/militia from reprisal, letting murderers like Eric Rudolph run free.

Mine is obviously not a perfect analogy, but it certainly parallels reality a little more closely than Ass®ocket’s ridiculous post.

It wasn’t just a cartoon. It was a deliberate provocation, one that Muslims would react to just like we do when we see an American flag burned. Except the Muslims are, how shall we say this, culturally not quite as advanced as the West. Blame that on poverty, blame it on a regressive religion, blame it on colonialism. But don’t pretend the average Muslim is as sophisticated or as educated as your average Westerner. The real equivalence here, to the Muslims, would be to Emmett Till kissing a white woman.

The problem is that 14-year-old Emmett Till only winked at a white woman, and for that he was beaten horribly then lynched. That was 1955 in Mississippi. Many Muslims are still living in an 1855 world. Drawing Mohammed is, for them, like interracial sex was for many Americans just a few generations ago.

Bearing that in mind, it would behoove us to respect their boundaries instead of playing 120db Cheap Trick at Gitmo interrogations and letting our female troops humiliate their men at Abu Ghraib. The rules are simple: don’t depict Mohammed in any visual medium, and don’t **** with the Ka’aba. If you have any questions, you’re a moron or a ****ing diehard neocon/wingnut.

What are we going to do if aliens ever land on earth? Insult their culture, kill the adults and then convert their offspring to Christianity?

Again, even Hugh ****ing Hewitt gets it. This isn’t about freedom of speech: it’s about fighting words and deliberate provocation. Or, as Mr. Sponge wrote this morning at Minvolved:

Note to Strib editors: You don’t even need to write any new content, just run the cartoons with a picture of Piss Christ and a copy of the Bill of Rights.

Talking about these issues is freedom of speech. Reprinting cartoons or photos is provocation if you know in advance they will enrage some people. Our newspapers prudishly refuse to show nudity, and are squeamish when it comes to dead bodies. Why then did the Philly Inquirer reprint that cartoon? What did reprinting a widely available image do to advance the dialogue?

We all know about Piss Christ. Running a picture would just antagonize those who are already angry about it. That’s the point, not whether or not you have the right to say or draw what you please, but whether or not you have the unlimited right to put your offensive images into the public view.

If a full-frontal picture of a nude and sexually excited George Bush fell into my hands, what would be the point of publishing it? Linking to another page containing the image would be more than sufficient to make any belabored point I might have, but printing it in a newspaper would be unforgivable.

It’s time we stop treating our goatse images like they were protected speech. There are laws against dropping your pants in public, but that doesn’t mean you’re not entitled to have genitals.

And please note that I’m not including a link to a goatse image. Curious? Just do a Google images search for “goatse” and then tell me if you think the pictures you see are appropriate for a family newspaper.

Muslims feel the same way about depictions of Mohammed. If you want to think of Mohammed as religious goatse, be my guest. Just don’t show me any drawings or pictures, please.

UPDATE: Four Muslims are dead because of a cartoon. At some point can we address the reality of this instead of the ivory tower handwringing ****?

People who don’t think you have the right to view porn in your own home are fulminating about freedom of speech as if they actually care. I’ll bet that if you asked Ass®ocket, he’d cheerfully tell you the Strib should publish that cartoon on the front page even if it meant local riots that would kill dozens.

Principle is that important to Ass®ocket, especially if those riots get people to talking about something besides Bush’s illegal eavesdropping and failed war.
http://www.norwegianity.com/

[Big Booger]

all religions are full of zealots... does that make the religion bad? I think not... does that make the zealots bad? Definitely.

Freedom of speech should be a global standard right given to all and enforced by the UN (HAHAHAHA)... one day maybe.

It is our right as humans to help each other and to push for freedom of speech. You may not agree with the message, but it should be allowed to be said.

That said, if the message material is geared toward the promotion of violence, child porn or something of that nature, then most definitely it should be removed.

[PIPER]

It is our right as humans to help each other and to push for freedom of speech. You may not agree with the message, but it should be allowed to be said.


Isn't this what I implied with my comment?....how something is interpreted is yet another point....comment, drawing......etc, etc, etc.

[Big Booger]

http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

Here's a site that has decided to "one up" the originals, also Danes doing their dandiest to display drawings of dat demigod.

[jan]

all religions are full of zealots... does that make the religion bad? I think not... does that make the zealots bad? Definitely.

Freedom of speech should be a global standard right given to all and enforced by the UN (HAHAHAHA)... one day maybe.

It is our right as humans to help each other and to push for freedom of speech. You may not agree with the message, but it should be allowed to be said.

That said, if the message material is geared toward the promotion of violence, child porn or something of that nature, then most definitely it should be removed.

I gotta agree w/that. But I wouldnt hold my breath on the UN though. They are not the friend or "soulmate" of freedom and/or justice by any stretch of the imagination. :p

[z3n]

z3n, I agree wholeheartedly. For once...

Nice to hear..

Although we don't see eye to eye often, something tells me it would only take a couple of cartons of beer and a bottle of whiskey (you drink Jacks (http://www.jackdaniels.com/), I'll drink Jameson's (http://www.itcouldjustbethetaste.com/)) and we'd be bloody good mates. ;)

Sorry I'm off topic.

[Denyse]

Nice to hear..

Although we don't see eye to eye often, something tells me it would only take a couple of cartons of beer and a bottle of whiskey (you drink Jacks (http://www.jackdaniels.com/), I'll drink Jameson's (http://www.itcouldjustbethetaste.com/)) and we'd be bloody good mates. ;)

Sorry I'm off topic.


I'll drink to that!http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/DOCOM/1-0/drunk.gif

[Curio]

"Does this offend?" Of course it offends. It's bleeding obvious that it offends, and the newspaper knew it would offend.

It doesn't offend me.
You can always find someone that will be offended by anything if you try hard enough. So you are saying you can't print anything?


Are you pro-freedom of speech or do you think there should be limits?


From BBs original post.

[Nikto]

It doesn't offend me.
You can always find someone that will be offended by anything if you try hard enough. So you are saying you can't print anything?
It doesn't offend me, either. It does, however, offend Muslims. And this is just absurd:
You can always find someone that will be offended by anything if you try hard enough. So you are saying you can't print anything?
I suggest you think about what you're really asking. You are implying that, because someone will be offended by anything, you have the right to print everything, irrespective of the offence it may cause. There is a word called 'obtuse'.

[Big Booger]

Being offended by something gives no one the right to commit acts of violence in retaliation... simple as that.

If you feel violated you should protest, openly. But the moment you attack with violence you are a criminal.

[PIPER]

Being offended by something gives no one the right to commit acts of violence in retaliation... simple as that.

If you feel violated you should protest, openly. But the moment you attack with violence you are a criminal.

Ditto to that BB....:goodpost:

[tarun]

Check this out - http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

The cartoons in question were published in a well-circulated Egyptian newspaper in Oct 2005 and there was no fuss... pictures of newspaper!

[jan]

I whole heartedly agree with BB. I should also add that a tiny minority of the practitioners of Islam who are Islamo-fascists are displaying they're true colors. The entire world is seeing the signs .. the signs on the streets calling for death and decapitations. "Death to those who insult Islam." "Cut off the hands of those who depict the Prophet." "Decapitate those who disrespect Mohammed." Some of the signs caution Europe to remember 9/11.

Its sad but the Euro-weenies are apparently starting to cave. As the Islamo-fascists see Europeans cower at their threats they grow more and more emboldened. This, though, is the European way. It seems that the European Union is ready to consider some restrictions (http://euobserver.com/9/20862) on freedom of the press. Now, to be fair, they're referring to these new rules as mere guidelines and suggestions, but I think we all know that eventually guidelines and restrictions become requirements and regulations. The ultimate goal of the guidelines would be to prohibit newspapers in EU countries from printing material or images that would be offensive to the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam. So ... instead of trying to educate the Islamic world about the nuances of a free press, just start reigning in the media to please the Islamic world. Make no mistake .. the mere suggestion by this EU weasel is a major victory for the mad Mullahs and Imams who have been whipping their semi-literate herds into a frenzy over these cartoons that were first published 5 months ago in an Egyptian newspaper as noted above. Why no outrage then? Well ... there is a good reason. Actually about 8 or 10 reasons that Ive mentioned on my site. Maybe I'll mention it here later.

[FastGame]

Hi Jan, I really like you :D

My Freedom of Speech for the day, Thanks :)

[Reverend]

Its sad but the Euro-weenies........This, though, is the European way mmmm....i hope you're not including Britain in your Euro assumption. :rolleyes:

I think you'll find we (Brits) are made of sterner stuff. :Poke:

[Curio]

You are implying that, because someone will be offended by anything, you have the right to print everything

No I am saying that people are offended by lots of things and the fact that someone might be offended by something is no guide to it's validity. You however are saying that if people are offended by something then they should have the right to restrict my freedom to read it, even though their views may have no relevance to me. I can censor myself and so can everyone else - if you don't want to see something then don't look for it.

Anyways this argument is pointless - I believe in freedom of speech, end of story. You don't - no biggy. Someone famous once said 'I may not agree with you or what you say but I will fight for your freedom to say it' - can't remember who.

[Reverend]

Someone famous once said 'I may not agree with you or what you say but I will fight for your freedom to say it' - can't remember who.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire

;)

[Reverend]

Francois Voltaire:

No right is more fundamental than freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech you can’t communicate your ideas and feelings, decry a social injustice, pursue an artistic vision, investigate scientific truth, practice a religion, or criticize government. If freedom of speech is destroyed, self-development is crippled, social progress grinds to a halt, and official lies become the only "truth."

[Reverend]

Francois Voltaire:

Censorship has been growing in the United States as well. The First Amendment to our Constitution unequivocally states that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Yet during the last decades, with ever-growing zeal, our legislatures have been censoring books, films, photography, art, music, news, and even scientific information. And our courts – all the way up to the Supreme Court – have said it’s legal.

[Reverend]

Interesting article here, regarding freedom of speech and censorship,and not just Europe ,but the US as well. FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER SIEGE (http://www.libertarianworld.com/censorship.html)

[Nikto]

I whole heartedly agree with BB.
Who wouldn't? As BB said:
Being offended by something gives no one the right to commit acts of violence in retaliation... simple as that.
Hardly an innovative view.
I should also add that a tiny minority of the practitioners of Islam who are Islamo-fascists are displaying they're true colors. (emphasis added)
Got it in one, jan, it is a tiny minority.
The entire world is seeing the signs .. the signs on the streets calling for death and decapitations. "Death to those who insult Islam." "Cut off the hands of those who depict the Prophet." "Decapitate those who disrespect Mohammed." Some of the signs caution Europe to remember 9/11.
You just don't get it, do you? Listen, pal: Muslims have seen their lands stolen, their countries invaded, their people killed in the tens of thousands, and on, and on. Then some deliberately provocative dickhead thinks it a good idea to test 'freedom of speech' by printing some crappy cartoons which he knows damn well will piss Muslims off. You don't see an agenda here?
Its sad but the Euro-weenies are apparently starting to cave.
Precisely who are the "Euro-weenies"? I see you are a US resident. Precisely how many mainstream US papers have printed the cartoons? Are there, by any slight chance, "US-weenies" out there?
As the Islamo-fascists
Justify this, please. The words: "a tiny minority" spring to mind. Your words, not mine.
see Europeans cower at their threats they grow more and more emboldened.
Justify this, please, with full details of: "Precisely how many mainstream US papers have printed the cartoons? Are there, by any slight chance, "US-weenies" out there?"
This, though, is the European way.
Justify this, please.

And on, and on...

I just don't know how to respond to this level of idiocy, other than by asking: "Who do you hate the most, jan, Muslims or Europeans? And why do you hate so many people so much?"

[Reverend]

Freedom of speech has never truly existed,(regardless of what Country you live in),its just a myth.

[z3n]

Freedom of speech has never truly existed,(regardless of what Country you live in),its just a myth.

Not entirely true Rev, I met a guy who knew a guy who's sisters boyfriend, lived with a guy who was on acid in the desert and said he saw freedom of speech dressed in a white sequin jump suit, but then he did also say it may have just been Elvis.

[jan]

"Who do you hate the most, jan, Muslims or Europeans? And why do you hate so many people so much?"

Aww a true liberal. Your retorts are based on false assumptions. Yes there are unfortunately many, many ameri-weenies. That is why we have a national security problem. And who said the american press is any diff/better than the world press. You sound as though you cannot fathom personal dissagreement w/o hate being involved somehow. This says more about you than me my friend. I hate no one. :cool:

[Big Booger]

Precisely who are the "Euro-weenies"? I see you are a US resident. Precisely how many mainstream US papers have printed the cartoons? Are there, by any slight chance, "US-weenies" out there?

I agree... the US press is cowardly in this regard. They didn't print it, and it is supposedly to show "respect" toward Muslims. I can understand. Why had fuel to the fire? But then so did a lot of countries, Japan, China, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, UK (I am not sure about this one), Russia, etc....

But that said, if any newspaper anywhereshould agree to carry the cartoons, I'd support it in full. Because I believe in freedom of speech, even though it my not exist anywhere on this planet in a true form.

And I might take heat over this, but Iran is going to run cartoons of their own of the Jewish Holocaust, and I support them. It may be offensive, it may be in poor taste, but it is only fair.

Honestly though, did any of those Muslims who attacked the Danish embassies, get the message from the cartoon authors? I don't think it was a direct attack on Muslims, and their religion. Certainly they knew tempers would flare, but the message was quite clear to me:

Muslims=Violence

And you see those images and then immediately after you see it come true... they attacked embassies, burned flags, threw stones, and killed people.

I wonder if any Muslims actually looked at the cartoon and asked, "How do non-Muslims view our religion?" Why are they showing Muhammad with a bomb on his head? Why are they printing these images? What is the purpose?

When you let religion run you to commit violent acts, you are not longer a religious person. Now that may be simplistic thinking... but it's nonetheless true.

[zipp51]

Freedom of speech has never truly existed,(regardless of what Country you live in),its just a myth.


Your right, it is an ideal not a fact.Just look what happened to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie in the USA after Joe bashed the gov't for not telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction findings.

[jan]

The mainstream media here and abroad seems to be partially excusing the behavior of Muslim rioters in the cartoon rage incidents. One columnists says they're simply endorsing the goal of the mob without endorsing its means. An interesting little read. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_10_06_CK.html)

[FastGame]

Just look what happened to Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie in the USA after Joe bashed the gov't for not telling the truth about weapons of mass destruction findings.
My-o-My, since Joe Wilson's exercise in the Freedom of Speech was nothing more than deceit.....

Contrary to popular myth, Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee you won't be socked in the mouth. ;)

Well I guess all the "no politics, no religion" stuff went out the window awhile back in this thread :rolleyes: Then again how could a thread on "Freedom of Speech" ever be censored with such restrictions :confused:

[Big Booger]

My-o-My, since Joe Wilson's exercise in the Freedom of Speech was nothing more than deceit.....

Contrary to popular myth, Freedom of Speech doesn't guarantee you won't be socked in the mouth. ;)

Well I guess all the "no politics, no religion" stuff went out the window awhile back in this thread :rolleyes: Then again how could a thread on "Freedom of Speech" ever be censored with such restrictions :confused:

You're right FG. It's hard to discuss freedoms without politics or religion. It was foolhardy to think it could be done.

[rik]

And I might take heat over this, but Iran is going to run cartoons of their own of the Jewish Holocaust, and I support them. It may be offensive, it may be in poor taste, but it is only fair.


I understand if not agree with, and respect most views in this thread...except of course Yours Nikto.

Regardless I do have an issue with this statement. Iran is going to run cartoons of their own of the Jewish Holocaust, but it is only fair.

As far as I have read, Isreal as a whole has kept quiet about this. The Jews have stayed out of this until Iran brought them into it. Regardless, can Iran do that? They have that right, yes. Is it offensive to some? Yes. Will it be seen as offensive as the Danish cartoons? Certainly not. Isreal has lost much of the backing of the World recently.

[Big Booger]

I understand if not agree with, and respect most views in this thread...except of course Yours Nikto.

Regardless I do have an issue with this statement.

As far as I have read, Isreal as a whole has kept quiet about this. The Jews have stayed out of this until Iran brought them into it. Regardless, can Iran do that? They have that right, yes. Is it offensive to some? Yes. Will it be seen as offensive as the Danish cartoons? Certainly not. Isreal has lost much of the backing of the World recently.

I don't agree with it either, I just think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think it is in poor taste and it is bringing Jews into a matter than as you have said they have largely tried to stay out of...

Will I go and throw stones at the Iranian Embassy? No. Will I burn their flag? No. Will I kill Iranians that I know are living in Japan. No.

If they want to be ignorant let them.

[jan]

:whs:

[PIPER]

http://religion.info/artman/uploads/0222_jyllands-posten.jpg

Complete list of those cartoons:

http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/index.php?p=133


Just curious what your opinions are on this matter...

Are you pro-freedom of speech or do you think there should be limits?

This is not about the politics or religion of the world... it is about your opinion of the freedom of speech.

Are you pro freedom of speech or do you think that there are some topics that shouldn't be allowed?

Please don't make this a political debate or it will be deleted. Discuss your opinion about freedom of speech. Thanks.


Me thinks this did not work my friend....tough to do..

[Nikto]

Anyways this argument is pointless - I believe in freedom of speech, end of story. You don't - no biggy.
I simply don't know what you mean by this. In the UK, where you live, there is a law against using threatening or abusive language designed to stir racial hatred. Do you think people should be free to deliberately stir racial hatred?

'Plamegate' has been mentioned in this thread. This investigation was started when someone high up in the US government leaked the fact that Joseph Wilson's wife was an undercover CIA agent. This particular exercise in free speech is a criminal offence in the US, punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Do you think people should be free to reveal the names of undercover CIA agents, when doing so might well endanger the lives of those agents, and of their contacts?

A simple yes or no to the above 2 questions will suffice.

[z3n]

I'd like to use a life-line.

Can I call a friend ?

:D

[Reverend]

Well I guess all the "no politics, no religion" stuff went out the window awhile back in this threadAgreed. This topic is very bordeline regarding the rules.

[Curio]

I simply don't know what you mean by this.
I don't think I could of made it plainer. Clever fellow that Voltaire. People entrusted with state secrets will have taken some kind of oath which they would break by revealing them - that is not a freedom of speech issue. As for the other question I believe it is probably better that people harbouring those kind of feelings be free to express them. I would rather know who they are and they can be enlightened, if they are opressed then their feelings will perpetuate and maybe deepen behind closed doors. Failing that at least I know who to avoid.

You really don't get this fundamental right thing do you.

[Nikto]

I don't think I could of made it plainer. Clever fellow that Voltaire. People entrusted with state secrets will have taken some kind of oath which they would break by revealing them - that is not a freedom of speech issue.
Possibly the dumbest response yet. Doesn't this oath they've taken, y'know, kinda limit their, um, freedom of speech? So freedom of speech is fine, unless you take an oath which removes it completely. Just. Beyond. Belief. So, no more whistleblowers. I have a copy of Clive Ponting's: "The Right To Know - The Inside Story of The Belgrano Affair". Now, if you had your way, this book would never even have been published, as, in writing it, Ponting breached the Official Secrets Act which he had signed. Ponting was duly tried for exercising what he considered to be his freedom of speech and was acquitted. I take it you would rather he had not been acquitted, Curio, because, to you, the Official Secrets Act takes precedence over freedom of speech. It's odd, this freedom of speech lark.
As for the other question I believe it is probably better that people harbouring those kind of feelings be free to express them. I would rather know who they are and they can be enlightened
Even more idiotic than the above. So people who harbour feelings of child molestation, murder, rape, kidnap, y'know: "people harbouring those kind of feelings" should be free to do so, just so we'll: "know who they are and they can be enlightened".
if they are opressed then their feelings will perpetuate and maybe deepen behind closed doors.
Personally, I'd keep these people behind closed doors. In prison. But that's just me. You: "believe it is probably better that people harbouring those kind of feelings be free to express them."
Failing that at least I know who to avoid.
Yep, avoiding criminals sounds good to me.
You really don't get this fundamental right thing do you.
You really don't get anything, very much, do you?

[Curio]

It seems that I am an idiot. Oh well never mind, your replies are full of contradictions and to be called an idiot by you probably is a compliment. I will however refrain from name calling myself as I don't stoop that low.

In case you didn't realise it having feelings about the subjects you mention is not altered by the right to speak about it - if it was then we wouldn't have those people around would we?

[rik]

Any further flaming will result in the thread being closed. And yes, You may call it "Censoring Free Speech" if you would like.

[rohitk89]

And yes, You may call it "Censoring Free Speech" if you would like.:lol:

[cash_site]

Sort skipped through most of the arguments here... BUT...

It is fair enough to have free speech, and be able to say anything you want... however, there are consequences if what you say offends people. And the people who were offended should be free to voice their concern!

So, the cartoonist should have known that it was going to inflame issues... they should be allowed to draw, but dont complain if a brick is coming thru ur window.

I just hope the violence settles down though, a lot of bystanders could get caught up.

[Big Booger]

Sort skipped through most of the arguments here... BUT...

It is fair enough to have free speech, and be able to say anything you want... however, there are consequences if what you say offends people. And the people who were offended should be free to voice their concern!

So, the cartoonist should have known that it was going to inflame issues... they should be allowed to draw, but dont complain if a brick is coming thru ur window.

I just hope the violence settles down though, a lot of bystanders could get caught up.

But certainly you agree that "voicing a concern" is hardly like burning flags, destroying embassies, and killing people.... ;)

[jan]

But certainly you agree that "voicing a concern" is hardly like burning flags, destroying embassies, and killing people.... ;)

Exactly.

[z3n]

But certainly you agree that "voicing a concern" is hardly like burning flags, destroying embassies, and killing people....

Killing people never hurt anybody.

[cash_site]

Killing people never hurt anybody.
Unless ur killing anybody :eek:

[Curio]

You can now get these cartoons on T-shirts http://www.shopmetrospy.com/ so trying to supress them worked well. Funny thing is they were actually rubbish and not the slightest bit amusing but because of the reaction they (eventually) managed to get now probably everyone has had the chance to see them. Ironic.

[jugador]

There was a discussion at a nearby university this evening. It was on this and similar subjects. The consensus of the group, made up of students representing 34 countries and 8 religions, that political humor should be taken with a grain of salt.

Shown were images much more offensive than anything you presented.

Two students, one was from Isreal, and the other was from Saudi Arabia both agreed that the problem comes from the news media whom has an agenda to see who can create the greatest sensationalism.

I had to agree with them. The news media no longer feels they just need to REPORT the news; but feel they must CREATE it as well.
Denyse,Didn't you know that the newspapers are controlled by the leaders of the USA? They are told what to and what not to print. The only real news that I get comes from the CBC in Canada as they at least report all the news.

[Denyse]

Denyse,Didn't you know that the newspapers are controlled by the leaders of the USA? They are told what to and what not to print. The only real news that I get comes from the CBC in Canada as they at least report all the news. You can also check out http://www.FSTV.com:)

I think you better, get to a proctologist fast! You need to get a good cleaning out.

[jugador]

I think you better, get to a proctologist fast! You need to get a good cleaning out.
I just went there and he found part of your brain. Allah il Allah:D

[jan]

Denyse,Didn't you know that the newspapers are controlled by the leaders of the USA? They are told what to and what not to print. The only real news that I get comes from the CBC in Canada as they at least report all the news.

Yeah, the tooth fairy is pretty generous with the dinero for de tooth too. :cool: