Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[Intense]

Might want to consider that Muslims that are Pro Reform, even Moderate Muslims, can be just as much a target as us. The issue isn't about most Muslims, it's about those with Concentrated Power, who direct the trends, and act with impunity. Whether it's one in a thousand, or one in a hundred thousand, it is insignificant to the victim of the effect. The Enemy is Sharia, trying to bring the World into Compliance with It's Interpretation of what is Right and Just, by Any Means. It does not Recognize anything even Parallel, It does not see Truth outside of It's own brand, only temporary competition, obstruction. In Islam, the Sword is Mightier than the Pen.

This is the other side of the coin. What would it profit those peaceful Germans, for instance,who would have suffered Corrie Ten Boom and her family's fate or worse had they protected Jews or openly spoken out or otherwise resisted the orders of the Third Reich? Was Oscar Schindler honorable or dishonorable in pretending to be a loyal Nazi even as he was sheltering Jews and sabotaging the German war machine? If you are a Muslim, are you, as a matter of honor, obligated to speak out against militant Islamic terrorists and thereby make yourself a target?

How do we view those who shield illegal immigrants so that they won't be deported? How do we view a William Ayers who commmitted domestic terrorism against his own country? How do we view those who we perceive or suspect are intentionally sabotaging Americans or American enterprise no matter how pure their motives? Do you sympathise with the OWS in their more destructive demonstrations?

As much as we would like to make this cut and dried, I can see the dichotomies that exist.

Sort of like "The Emperor's New Suit". One never knows the effect, until you take the first step. It is an act of Faith, putting ones Self out there.

 

[Intense]

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."

Bullshit. Who hasn't disrespected some one else's beliefs at one time or another?

Vast majorities never participate directly in protests, but interviews with Muslims who didn't participate indicate that they were almost universally angry about the film. This raises the question: to what extent does this anger provide fertile soil from which extremists such as those who attacked our embassies can grow? The vast majority of Germans did not participate in any activities related to the Holocaust, yet without their hostile attitudes towards Jews the nazis would never have been empowered to perpetrate their horrors.

Angry, sure. But the governments made arrests and protected our embassies. I heard a guy interviewed, forget from which country, but he said most didn't agree with the protests (though of course, everyone does have a right to protest without getting violent) and a real Muslim would never mistreat a guest in their country. He also said it is hard for him to understand why someone would feel the need to insult a religious icon in this manner.

I think your analogy is off.

There were leaks within those Governments that contributed to the Deaths and the Violence.

 

[Rozman]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

And a huge percentage of Muslims are Ass clowns who have their panties bunch up when
they perceive a slight.And instead of protesting in a reasonable fashion they get themselves worked up in a frenzy and go off and kill people...

Oh and it seems like this fucked up religion seems to encourage their followers to do just that.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

Makes you wonder how Cathollics became and remain the single largest Christian denomination in both the USA and the world doesn't it? The Irish and the Italians who immigrated to the USA did incur a lot of discrimination, but from their memoirs, it was not because they were Catholic. Not one of those in my family mentioned that being a problem. I'm not saying that it never happened anywhere. But once the first colonists gave up their little theocracies, and all had essentially done so by the end of the 18th Century, any discrimination on the basis of religion was pretty infrequent and isolated. Was there prejudice? Absolutely. Including in my own family. But discrimination? Not so much.

The worst case of religious discrimination and persecution was the persecution of the Mormons who were driven out of place after place until they wound up in Utah on land nobody else wanted. They made it prosper of course.

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

And a huge percentage of Muslims are Ass clowns who have their panties bunch up when
they perceive a slight.And instead of protesting in a reasonable fashion they get themselves worked up in a frenzy and go off and kill people...

Oh and it seems like this fucked up religion seems to encourage their followers to do just that.

No, it's a small percentage. And even smaller than the Danish cartoon outrage.

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

Makes you wonder how Cathollics became and remain the single largest Christian denomination in both the USA and the world doesn't it? The Irish and the Italians who immigrated to the USA did incur a lot of discrimination, but from their memoirs, it was not because they were Catholic. Not one of those in my family mentioned that being a problem. I'm not saying that it never happened anywhere. But once the first colonists gave up their little theocracies, and all had essentially done so by the end of the 18th Century, any discrimination on the basis of religion was pretty infrequent and isolated. Was there prejudice? Absolutely. Including in my own family. But discrimination? Not so much.

The worst case of religious discrimination and persecution was the persecution of the Mormons who were driven out of place after place until they wound up in Utah on land nobody else wanted. They made it prosper of course.

It was because they were Catholic. The KKK used to burn crosses on their lawns because they were Catholic. And, no, the Mormons haven't suffered as much, probably simply because there weren't as many of them.

 

[syrenn]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

funny...i don't recall mass rioting Catholics..... or sports fans killing the players.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is your right to go to a black neighborhood, break out a loud speaker, and spew the vilest racist hate speech you can think of. No one has the right to kill you for your words. However that doesn't mean you get to bury your head in the sand and pretend your words don't have consequences.

But what consequences should be tolerated?

What kind of action to you purpose we take that we haven't already? These aren't American citizens, or even a foreign goverment.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I was commenting on your post that presented the analogy of spewing racist hatred in a black neighborhood having consequences. While we are agreed that murder is not acceptable, I wondered what consequences for such a stupid action would be tolerable? Defensible?

The OP really comes down to that. How much do we have liberty to provoke anger in others? And what are the limits to response at such provocation?

It's like how much culpability, if any, does a provocatively dressed woman have parading her charms in a rough neighborhood? If we can expect 'consequences' for provoking retaliation for racist garbage spewed in a black neighborhood, are we at least partly liable when those consequences are posed? And does the cartoonist bear any responsibility when he depicts a vulgar cartoon specifically to insult Mohammed KNOWING that it will provoke violence and anger among Muslims?

 

[oldfart]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

 

[whitehall]

Free speech is ....absolutely guaranteed...in the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers thought it was so important that they listed it in the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The ACLU made damned sure America didn't forget the 1st Amendment when they sued for the right to burn the Flag and shit on it in the street during the anarchy years of the 60's and 70's. Now that we have a left wing president the ACLU is on vacation and the hate mongers want to lock up a film maker because they are offended by his version of free speech. God help us if the left ever takes total control.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I think both OldFart's question and Whitehall's statement are legitimate components to this discussion.

Do we deserve retaliation if we intentionally and on purpose provoke rage or other antisocial behavior from people for no other reason than we dislike them?

Are we giving in to unreasonable demands of unreasonable people if we go out of our way not to provoke them? And that would include choosing not to express our opinion about their behavior or way of life? Can anyone be truly free if they are required to restrain their opinions out of fear of retaliation?

And yet, if my exercising my right to free speech in perfect safety provokes rage that cause injury or harm to you, do I bear any responsibility for what happens to you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

Did they kill ambassadors, raid embassies, and try to blackmail the world into not insulting them? If not, I don't see the connection.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

Am I responsible for the actions of others? No.

 

[Foxfyre]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

Am I responsible for the actions of others? No.

Philosophically I agree with you. But then is there no blame at all for the idiots who shout at the jumper on the ledge or bridge and tell him to jump. And he does?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

Am I responsible for the actions of others? No.

Philosophically I agree with you. But then is there no blame at all for the idiots who shout at the jumper on the ledge or bridge and tell him to jump. And he does?

I would find it reprehensible, but not hold them responsible.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I had a long discussion about this last week with my older son and was finally able to put my finger on what was bothering me about this situation. I don't have a good solution, but I think I am at least asking the right question.

At the core this has nothing to do with our rights. Of course we should defend free speech in principal. The problem is an ethical one. The people who exercise free speech are not the same people who are at risk from the blowback. Without consciously deciding to, they are putting others at risk of the consequences of their actions.

Islamic terrorism exists. It does not matter if most Muslims or just 5% support terrorism. A few terrorists can destablize a society, whether it is in North Africa or North America. We can work to separate terrorists from the population they are imbedded in (support counter-terrorist programs) and we should do so, but it is not going to change things overnight. There is still a terrorist danger.

So what say you all? Do rights such as free speech have attached responsibilities? Do those exercising free speech have any duty of prudence to those fellow citizens abroad, diplomatic, military, tourists, or businessmen, or are they on there own? I'm interested in what you think.

The protests, noisy and ugly though they may be, were exercises in free speech in response to the film. The actual damage and death was the result of inadequate security at our embassies in a very volatile part of the world. Our ambassador in Libya had apparently been advising the State Department that he was on an al Qaeda hit list and believed he was in significant danger for some time. So if we assume the film maker genuinely believed he had an important message to communicate, it would have been irresponsible of him not to make the film.

 

[Swagger]

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?

You've summarised exactly how I feel in just three sentences. I'm almost certain that recent events re. the provocation of the Muslims in the Middle East is being orchestrated, to whatever end. That being said, and on the assumption that it's not being used as a means to provoke another war, right at the back of my mind I can't help but think it might be a good thing.

Personally speaking, I really couldn't give a toss if Muslims get all bent out of shape and start butchering each other in their own countries over these cartoons. But there's a lot of them in the West, which poses a risk to us all. That being said, we've been here before after Pastor Jones and some of his followers burned Qur'ans in Florida, and nothing on the domestic front ever really came of it. In any event, I've come to the conclusion that in order to fit into western society, Muslims need to familiarise themselves with what it's like to be offended and have their faith criticised. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that learning to cope with religious offense without getting bent out of all proportion over it is one of the fundamental requirements of living in a western country.

In short, they should learn to put up or shut up. If they can't, then screw them and the carpets they flew in on.

 

[Swagger]

And I think both OldFart's question and Whitehall's statement are legitimate components to this discussion.

Do we deserve retaliation if we intentionally and on purpose provoke rage or other antisocial behavior from people for no other reason than we dislike them?

Are we giving in to unreasonable demands of unreasonable people if we go out of our way not to provoke them? And that would include choosing not to express our opinion about their behavior or way of life? Can anyone be truly free if they are required to restrain their opinions out of fear of retaliation?

And yet, if my exercising my right to free speech in perfect safety provokes rage that cause injury or harm to you, do I bear any responsibility for what happens to you?

That depends entirely on what your motivation is; and whether or not you claim, with whatever authority, to speak for others. I mean, you can sit in relative saftey and send malicious text messages commenting on an aquaintance's weight. In such circumstances, you bear a burden of accountability for any hurt or bad feeling incurred by your comments. Opining on a religion half way 'round the world objectively and without malice shouldn't result in you being held accountable for any negative or destructive reaction(s), in my opinion.

 

[Ravi]

I wasn't talking about Catholics centuries ago. I was talking about them as immigrants in the last century. They were demonized in much the same way Muslims are demonized now.

The entire US against THEM meme plays out over and over.

It's like watching sports fans, riots erupt over hockey games, football games, soccer games, and whatever gay sport the Brits play (rugby?).

It's all stupid. And it's no different. Except for the fact that a huge percentage of Americans are bed-wetters when it comes to Muslims.

funny...i don't recall mass rioting Catholics..... or sports fans killing the players.

No one is killing these players (Mo & Jesus) either. As for the rioting, perhaps you've heard of the IRA?

 

[Ravi]

Free speech is ....absolutely guaranteed...in the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers thought it was so important that they listed it in the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The ACLU made damned sure America didn't forget the 1st Amendment when they sued for the right to burn the Flag and shit on it in the street during the anarchy years of the 60's and 70's. Now that we have a left wing president the ACLU is on vacation and the hate mongers want to lock up a film maker because they are offended by his version of free speech. God help us if the left ever takes total control.

This is probably the true aim of this thread, to cause people to freak out.

The ACLU would most certainly take the side of the film maker as regards to his right to be a total asshole. My goodness, they've defended Rush Limbaugh.

There is no danger of free speech being limited.