Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[Foxfyre]

The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.

A French satirical magazine published nude cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title “Intouchables 2″, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine show a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.

France has stepped up security at its embassies in countries following the move, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday.

“I have obviously issued instructions so that special security measures are taken in all the countries where this could pose a problem,” Fabius said, admitting that he was “concerned” by the potential for a backlash.

The publication came a day after 12 died in an Afghan suicide bombing, the deadliest attack linked to an anti-Islamic film.

A female suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan on Tuesday in the deadliest single attack attributed to the controversial film which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world.

The deaths raised to over 30 the toll from incidents linked to the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims,” a film produced by extremist Christians in the United States that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish womaniser.

Charlie Hebdo’s website crashed on Wednesday after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.

The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.

Last year it published an edition “guest-edited” by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazine’s offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his “disapproval of all excesses”.

But he emphasised France’s tradition of free speech. “We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,” he said on RTL radio.

“If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law — and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected — they can go to court,” Ayrault said.

He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world would be refused.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.

The magazine’s editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. . . .
French magazine publishes naked Prophet Mohammed cartoons | The Raw Story

So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?

 

[martybegan]

The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.

A French satirical magazine published nude cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title “Intouchables 2″, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine show a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.

France has stepped up security at its embassies in countries following the move, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday.

“I have obviously issued instructions so that special security measures are taken in all the countries where this could pose a problem,” Fabius said, admitting that he was “concerned” by the potential for a backlash.

The publication came a day after 12 died in an Afghan suicide bombing, the deadliest attack linked to an anti-Islamic film.

A female suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan on Tuesday in the deadliest single attack attributed to the controversial film which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world.

The deaths raised to over 30 the toll from incidents linked to the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims,” a film produced by extremist Christians in the United States that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish womaniser.

Charlie Hebdo’s website crashed on Wednesday after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.

The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.

Last year it published an edition “guest-edited” by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazine’s offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his “disapproval of all excesses”.

But he emphasised France’s tradition of free speech. “We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,” he said on RTL radio.

“If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law — and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected — they can go to court,” Ayrault said.

He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world would be refused.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.

The magazine’s editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. . . .
French magazine publishes naked Prophet Mohammed cartoons | The Raw Story

So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. "

Sometimes you have to fight to maintain your rights, even if the other side is the one bringing the fight to you.

 

[Katzndogz]

The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.

A French satirical magazine published nude cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title “Intouchables 2″, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine show a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.

France has stepped up security at its embassies in countries following the move, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday.

“I have obviously issued instructions so that special security measures are taken in all the countries where this could pose a problem,” Fabius said, admitting that he was “concerned” by the potential for a backlash.

The publication came a day after 12 died in an Afghan suicide bombing, the deadliest attack linked to an anti-Islamic film.

A female suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan on Tuesday in the deadliest single attack attributed to the controversial film which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world.

The deaths raised to over 30 the toll from incidents linked to the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims,” a film produced by extremist Christians in the United States that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish womaniser.

Charlie Hebdo’s website crashed on Wednesday after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.

The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.

Last year it published an edition “guest-edited” by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazine’s offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his “disapproval of all excesses”.

But he emphasised France’s tradition of free speech. “We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,” he said on RTL radio.

“If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law — and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected — they can go to court,” Ayrault said.

He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world would be refused.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.

The magazine’s editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. . . .
French magazine publishes naked Prophet Mohammed cartoons | The Raw Story

So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?

As I said before. It's time for an Everbody insult mohammed day.

 

[AmyNation]

It shouldn't be prohibited.

 

[AmyNation]

Took this from another thread, but I thought it was so well said it bears reposting

“Why is that a relevant question? We published what we published. The words and pictures speak for themselves. So if I were to say, hypothetically, that the purpose was to instill hatred, incite hatred and cause offense, are you saying that’s an acceptable answer? My answer to your question is as follows. We published those cartoons for the intention and purpose of exercising our inalienable rights as free born Albertans to publish whatever the hell we want no matter what the hell you think. I’ve probably given 200 interviews to people other than the state where I’d give a very thoughtful and nuanced expression of my intent, but the only thing I have to say to the government about why I published it is that it’s my bloody right to do so. … My answer to these two fascists, the one trained in Saudi Arabia and the other one piling on, is that I reserve the right to publish those cartoons for exactly what they complain about. I reserve the right to publish those cartoons to do every offensive thing that they claim is in my heart.”


http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/248389-the-right-to-break-islamic-law.html

 

[Foxfyre]

The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.

A French satirical magazine published nude cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed Wednesday, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.

The cover of Charlie Hebdo shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title “Intouchables 2″, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.

Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine show a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.

France has stepped up security at its embassies in countries following the move, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Wednesday.

“I have obviously issued instructions so that special security measures are taken in all the countries where this could pose a problem,” Fabius said, admitting that he was “concerned” by the potential for a backlash.

The publication came a day after 12 died in an Afghan suicide bombing, the deadliest attack linked to an anti-Islamic film.

A female suicide bomber killed 12 people in Afghanistan on Tuesday in the deadliest single attack attributed to the controversial film which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world.

The deaths raised to over 30 the toll from incidents linked to the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims,” a film produced by extremist Christians in the United States that depicts the Prophet Mohammed as a thuggish womaniser.

Charlie Hebdo’s website crashed on Wednesday after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.

The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.

Last year it published an edition “guest-edited” by the Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo. The magazine’s offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.

French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his “disapproval of all excesses”.

But he emphasised France’s tradition of free speech. “We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,” he said on RTL radio.

“If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law — and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected — they can go to court,” Ayrault said.

He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world would be refused.

Charlie Hebdo’s latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.

The magazine’s editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time. . . .
French magazine publishes naked Prophet Mohammed cartoons | The Raw Story

So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?

As I said before. It's time for an Everbody insult mohammed day.

If you had the power or influence to do so, could you call for that with a clear conscience knowing the possible consequences?

Or is the price of deferring to militant Islam too high and this the best way to handle it is for condemnable behavior by militant Islam triggering universal condemnation or ridicule of them and Mohammed the way to go?

Tough call.

 

[martybegan]

The latest in 'incidents" to anger militant Islam will probably be this French magazine in a country with a substantial and growing militant Muslim population.



So the question in my mind is: knowing what militant Islam's response to this kind of thing is, should it be prohibited? There is a part of me that questions the ethics of intentionally inflaming militant Muslims knowing that people will likely die. And there is a part of me that so resents free speech being set aside in deference to any religious (or other) figure or personality, I wonder what would happen if everybody insulted Islam's prophet simultaneously making it virtually impossible for them to target any one person or country?

As I said before. It's time for an Everbody insult mohammed day.

If you had the power or influence to do so, could you call for that with a clear conscience knowing the possible consequences?

Or is the price of deferring to militant Islam too high and this the best way to handle it is for condemnable behavior by militant Islam triggering universal condemnation or ridicule of them and Mohammed the way to go?

Tough call.

The consequence of giving in is the other side asking for more and more of your freedoms. At some point you would be left with the choice between fighting them or becoming one of them. Why not force the issue now and see what happens?

 

[AmyNation]

As I said before. It's time for an Everbody insult mohammed day.

If you had the power or influence to do so, could you call for that with a clear conscience knowing the possible consequences?

Or is the price of deferring to militant Islam too high and this the best way to handle it is for condemnable behavior by militant Islam triggering universal condemnation or ridicule of them and Mohammed the way to go?

Tough call.

The consequence of giving in is the other side asking for more and more of your freedoms. At some point you would be left with the choice between fighting them or becoming one of them. Why not force the issue now and see what happens?

There is no "see what happens". Let's be honest, we all know what happens. They riot and people die. If you are going to call for people to insult Islam more, be hones to admit you are sacrificing other peoples lives when you do it.

 

[martybegan]

If you had the power or influence to do so, could you call for that with a clear conscience knowing the possible consequences?

Or is the price of deferring to militant Islam too high and this the best way to handle it is for condemnable behavior by militant Islam triggering universal condemnation or ridicule of them and Mohammed the way to go?

Tough call.

The consequence of giving in is the other side asking for more and more of your freedoms. At some point you would be left with the choice between fighting them or becoming one of them. Why not force the issue now and see what happens?

There is no "see what happens". Let's be honest, we all know what happens. They riot and people die. If you are going to call for people to insult Islam more, be hones to admit you are sacrificing other peoples lives when you do it.

I am doing no such thing. Any violent response is soley on the perpetrators of such violence. I see those who perform the violence in response to speech not directed at them personally, but against an idea as people fit only for mocking, and if they continue said violence, fit only for death.

They keep this up and my qualms about JDAMs targeting thier "demonstrations" will keep going lower and lower.

 

[AmyNation]

The consequence of giving in is the other side asking for more and more of your freedoms. At some point you would be left with the choice between fighting them or becoming one of them. Why not force the issue now and see what happens?

There is no "see what happens". Let's be honest, we all know what happens. They riot and people die. If you are going to call for people to insult Islam more, be hones to admit you are sacrificing other peoples lives when you do it.

I am doing no such thing. Any violent response is soley on the perpetrators of such violence. I see those who perform the violence in response to speech not directed at them personally, but against an idea as people fit only for mocking, and if they continue said violence, fit only for death.

They keep this up and my qualms about JDAMs targeting thier "demonstrations" will keep going lower and lower.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't insult Islam, it's your right to do so and I support your rights of free speech. But dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining dont pretend that insults dont directly lead to violence and death.

Anyone who actively advocates insulting Islam has to accept that their words lead to other people's death. You have the right to free speech, but no one said you have the right to consequence free speech.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I refuse to acknowledge that, when militant muslims kill people over some insult to their religion, that the fault lies with ANYONE BUT THE MILITANT MUSLIMS WHO DID THE KILLING.

By publishing pictures of Mohammed with his ass out, all those people did was publish pictures of Mohammed with his ass out. The people who do the killing are the ones doing the killing. Period.

If the answer is even possibly that we should curtail speech that would offend people to the point of violence, where do we stop? If I'm wearing a Grateful Dead shirt and someone decides to bash my teeth in with a baseball bat because he hates hippy bullshit, do we ban Grateful Dead shirts to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Fuck no! We make an example of the idiot who was violent without just cause.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There is no "see what happens". Let's be honest, we all know what happens. They riot and people die. If you are going to call for people to insult Islam more, be hones to admit you are sacrificing other peoples lives when you do it.

I am doing no such thing. Any violent response is soley on the perpetrators of such violence. I see those who perform the violence in response to speech not directed at them personally, but against an idea as people fit only for mocking, and if they continue said violence, fit only for death.

They keep this up and my qualms about JDAMs targeting thier "demonstrations" will keep going lower and lower.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't insult Islam, it's your right to do so and I support your rights of free speech. But dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining dont pretend that insults dont directly lead to violence and death.

Anyone who actively advocates insulting Islam has to accept that their words lead to other people's death. You have the right to free speech, but no one said you have the right to consequence free speech.

I accept that such words will probably -lead- to the death of others, but I do not accept that the words are -responsible- for those deaths.

There is a difference.

 

[AmyNation]

I am doing no such thing. Any violent response is soley on the perpetrators of such violence. I see those who perform the violence in response to speech not directed at them personally, but against an idea as people fit only for mocking, and if they continue said violence, fit only for death.

They keep this up and my qualms about JDAMs targeting thier "demonstrations" will keep going lower and lower.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't insult Islam, it's your right to do so and I support your rights of free speech. But dont piss on my leg and tell me its raining dont pretend that insults dont directly lead to violence and death.

Anyone who actively advocates insulting Islam has to accept that their words lead to other people's death. You have the right to free speech, but no one said you have the right to consequence free speech.

I accept that such words will probably -lead- to the death of others, but I do not accept that the words are -responsible- for those deaths.

There is a difference.

I agree. There is no justification for murdering people over insults to your religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I am agreeing with most of you. To allow others to dictate what we may say, think, express, opine about, insulting or not is to subjugate ourselves to others and give them power that it may be unhealthy to alllow them to have.

But playing devil's advocate here, do we bear no responsibility to not provoke the mentally unbalanced, the deranged, the brainwashed, or to simply look to our own interests?

You might see your boss as a total ass, but do you say so and thereby risk being demoted, not promoted, or fired? Or do you exercise prudence?

Do you obey the orders of the mad man or robber with a gun so as not to provoke him to shoot you or others he is with or the hostage he is holding? How much risk can you ethically take in a situation like that?

So how is it different to not provoke militant Muslims?

 

[martybegan]

Okay I am agreeing with most of you. To allow others to dictate what we may say, think, express, opine about, insulting or not is to subjugate ourselves to others and give them power that it may be unhealthy to alllow them to have.

But playing devil's advocate here, do we bear no responsibility to not provoke the mentally unbalanced, the deranged, the brainwashed, or to simply look to our own interests?

You might see your boss as a total ass, but do you say so and thereby risk being demoted, not promoted, or fired? Or do you exercise prudence?

Do you obey the orders of the mad man or robber with a gun so as not to provoke him to shoot you or others he is with or the hostage he is holding? How much risk can you ethically take in a situation like that?

So how is it different to not provoke militant Muslims?

Both of your cases involve a one on one interaction of a non political nature. In the case of your boss, by being employed you accept a certain chain of authority and accept the consequences of not abdiding by the chain of authority

In the second case there is a direct credible threat that has you at the wrong side of potential violence. And it is not poltical speech that may get your ass shot, but going against the wishes of an armed, in your face person, who by the way is breaking the law and will face consequences for his action. Your lack of speech will be vidicated by his criminal conviction of reducing your ability to decided what to do without the threat of violence.

Posting a picture that is not mandatory viewing by anyone does not compare to the examples you gave.

I do however, give you points for bringing them up. On the surface they do appear similar.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I refuse to acknowledge that, when militant muslims kill people over some insult to their religion, that the fault lies with ANYONE BUT THE MILITANT MUSLIMS WHO DID THE KILLING.

By publishing pictures of Mohammed with his ass out, all those people did was publish pictures of Mohammed with his ass out. The people who do the killing are the ones doing the killing. Period.

If the answer is even possibly that we should curtail speech that would offend people to the point of violence, where do we stop? If I'm wearing a Grateful Dead shirt and someone decides to bash my teeth in with a baseball bat because he hates hippy bullshit, do we ban Grateful Dead shirts to make sure it doesn't happen again?

Fuck no! We make an example of the idiot who was violent without just cause.

Bingo, we need to stop pretending that the reaction to speech is the fault of the person talking. I still don't understand why speech is the only thing that somehow justifies the reaction. We don't justify people from killing if someone else kills, but, for some reason, speech is worse.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well done Marty. Great response. Anybody else?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Okay I am agreeing with most of you. To allow others to dictate what we may say, think, express, opine about, insulting or not is to subjugate ourselves to others and give them power that it may be unhealthy to alllow them to have.

But playing devil's advocate here, do we bear no responsibility to not provoke the mentally unbalanced, the deranged, the brainwashed, or to simply look to our own interests?

You might see your boss as a total ass, but do you say so and thereby risk being demoted, not promoted, or fired? Or do you exercise prudence?

Do you obey the orders of the mad man or robber with a gun so as not to provoke him to shoot you or others he is with or the hostage he is holding? How much risk can you ethically take in a situation like that?

So how is it different to not provoke militant Muslims?

Strangely enough, experts in security advise you to actively resist and get away in the second situation.

 

[Ravi]

I think it is a shame that you broad-brushed Muslims with your thread title.

The vast majority of Muslims didn't protest the video or the cartoons.

But your thread title does one good thing, it makes me realize that the people acting like children by disrespecting someone's belief to this extent are also broad-brushing and when protests and riots occur they can say, "see I was right, Muslims are nothing but animals."

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it's a shame that you think that in the wake of angry Muslims rioting in a dozen countries as we speak, with a horrendous cost in damaged and destroyed property and loss of human life, that you think the thread title broad brushes all Muslims.