Publish but pay

[Indofred]

We have that silly film knocking Islam and now, a French mag with pictures of the Prophet, naked on a film set.

BBC News - France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being increased at France's interests abroad after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

That must be costing the French government and many French institutions/businesses a small fortune.

Should the magazine pay for this extra cost and should the American film makers pay for increased security in the US?

 

[martybegan]

We have that silly film knocking Islam and now, a French mag with pictures of the Prophet, naked on a film set.

BBC News - France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being increased at France's interests abroad after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

That must be costing the French government and many French institutions/businesses a small fortune.

Should the magazine pay for this extra cost and should the American film makers pay for increased security in the US?

No. The price for a free society should not be paid by those exercising thier freedoms.

 

[Indofred]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

 

[martybegan]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Again, the price of a free society. Asking for people to pay for thier free speech basically makes it the realm of the wealthy and well off.

So basically you get free speech being an economic benefit, not a benefit for all.

Its basically censorship via the back door.

 

[Indofred]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Again, the price of a free society. Asking for people to pay for thier free speech basically makes it the realm of the wealthy and well off.

So basically you get free speech being an economic benefit, not a benefit for all.

Its basically censorship via the back door.

As long as you're happy to stand the cost of people making a profit.
In the case of the film maker, it's reported he was paid $5 million to make a 20 minute load of old shit for youtube.

He's laughing while you're paying.
Enjoy.

 

[Katzndogz]

If he was paid 5 million, he wouldn't be living in Cerritos.

 

[there4eyeM]

If we all can pay for the infrastructure in which oil companies make hundreds of dollars per second, we can pay for the structure that assures speech.
Freedom of expression is as sacred to America and some other countries and cultures as any religious article of faith is to any religion.

 

[martybegan]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Again, the price of a free society. Asking for people to pay for thier free speech basically makes it the realm of the wealthy and well off.

So basically you get free speech being an economic benefit, not a benefit for all.

Its basically censorship via the back door.

As long as you're happy to stand the cost of people making a profit.
In the case of the film maker, it's reported he was paid $5 million to make a 20 minute load of old shit for youtube.

He's laughing while you're paying.
Enjoy.

Money should have nothing to do with the exercise of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

 

[flacaltenn]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Again, the price of a free society. Asking for people to pay for thier free speech basically makes it the realm of the wealthy and well off.

So basically you get free speech being an economic benefit, not a benefit for all.

Its basically censorship via the back door.

As long as you're happy to stand the cost of people making a profit.
In the case of the film maker, it's reported he was paid $5 million to make a 20 minute load of old shit for youtube.

He's laughing while you're paying.
Enjoy.

If he makes ANY money off (what you call a "load of old shit" in the CLEAN forum) movie, there is greater injustice in the world.. Unpopular exercise of speech is actually unpopular. People don't flock to puff pieces about the KKK or gooble up books about the Protocols of the Elders.. You know that.. It's fringe looney territority.. We TOLERATE IT. Because one person's fringe is anothers main course.

He's NOT gonna get rich from this unless YOU my pal --- make him an issue.. That's how America swings.. We don't REWARD deviance.. (Exceptions for Jerry Springer, the Kardashians, Honey Boo Boo and a hundred other "famous for nothings")

 

[flacaltenn]

If we all can pay for the infrastructure in which oil companies make hundreds of dollars per second, we can pay for the structure that assures speech.
Freedom of expression is as sacred to America and some other countries and cultures as any religious article of faith is to any religion.

Milk companies make "hundreds of dollars per second"... Your Communist whining is really really starting to grate..

 

[flacaltenn]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Maybe you missed it IndoMan. But our GOVT PAYS for hate speech.. Didn't you ever hear of the "Piss Christ" controversy?? It's ART... Perhaps that's lacking in the Muslim sector of the world..

Tax dollars being spent on patently OFFENSIVE expressions of speech... Why? Because we can....

 

[Full-Auto]

We have that silly film knocking Islam and now, a French mag with pictures of the Prophet, naked on a film set.

BBC News - France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being increased at France's interests abroad after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

That must be costing the French government and many French institutions/businesses a small fortune.

Should the magazine pay for this extra cost and should the American film makers pay for increased security in the US?

No!!!!! If death threats are to govern our lives...Lets pick up the pace......

 

[syrenn]

We have that silly film knocking Islam and now, a French mag with pictures of the Prophet, naked on a film set.

BBC News - France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being increased at France's interests abroad after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

That must be costing the French government and many French institutions/businesses a small fortune.

Should the magazine pay for this extra cost and should the American film makers pay for increased security in the US?

Why should anyone pay for muslims behaving badly? I am of the opinion if they have social services that support muslims.... funds should be taken from that to pay for anything that needs to be paid for....


This whole thing about "omg... they insulted our prophet" is ridiculous.


This is after all what they want... its a win win for the muslims. They terrorize people into silence....

The whole... if you insult us we will riot thing is bullshit.

 

[Indofred]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Maybe you missed it IndoMan. But our GOVT PAYS for hate speech.. Didn't you ever hear of the "Piss Christ" controversy?? It's ART... Perhaps that's lacking in the Muslim sector of the world..

Tax dollars being spent on patently OFFENSIVE expressions of speech... Why? Because we can....

I have but looked at it again before I posted.

It's rubbish and offensive to many.
Is freedom of speech greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted?

 

[martybegan]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Maybe you missed it IndoMan. But our GOVT PAYS for hate speech.. Didn't you ever hear of the "Piss Christ" controversy?? It's ART... Perhaps that's lacking in the Muslim sector of the world..

Tax dollars being spent on patently OFFENSIVE expressions of speech... Why? Because we can....

I have but looked at it again before I posted.

It's rubbish and offensive to many.
Is freedom of speech greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted?

yes, freedom is speech is ALWAYS greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted.

 

[flacaltenn]

So the taxpayer and business should subsidise hate speech because it's their right to be nasty in a deliberate attempt to incite conflict?

Maybe you missed it IndoMan. But our GOVT PAYS for hate speech.. Didn't you ever hear of the "Piss Christ" controversy?? It's ART... Perhaps that's lacking in the Muslim sector of the world..

Tax dollars being spent on patently OFFENSIVE expressions of speech... Why? Because we can....

I have but looked at it again before I posted.

It's rubbish and offensive to many.
Is freedom of speech greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted?

Interesting question.. But not difficult to answer.. I notice there are only a FEW self-identified Muslim comedians in America... Go ask them about the effective use of insults.

The GREAT comedians used to SLAY the Jews in the Catskills by offending them.. (you like that don'tcha --- slay? get it).. Because there's nothing funnier than a proper mocking of your own type. Or even a proper mocking of YOUR TYPE by a skilled comedian of the OPPOSITE type.. Like Black on White humor attacks... Or White on Black humor attacks (tho a bit more risky)

Could I do 20 minutes of Muslim jokes in Rihyad and walk away with my head attached? Probably --- If I was a Muslim and the audience was in most Western garb..

You ever heard Jeff Foxworthy????

You MIGHT be a Muslim if ......................... You might be a Muslim... ROFLing..

 

[there4eyeM]

"Is freedom of speech greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted?"

When is a question not really a question?

 

[The Rabbi]

Kudos to Martybegan for an excellent defense of free speech.
Free speech is a common good. If some film maker does not have free speech, then neither do I. Thus it is well withing the guidelines for government spending.

 

[FA_Q2]

We have that silly film knocking Islam and now, a French mag with pictures of the Prophet, naked on a film set.

BBC News - France in embassy alert over Prophet Muhammad cartoons

Security is being increased at France's interests abroad after a French satirical magazine published obscene cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

French embassies, consulates, cultural centres and international French schools in some 20 countries will be closed on Friday as a precaution.

That must be costing the French government and many French institutions/businesses a small fortune.

Should the magazine pay for this extra cost and should the American film makers pay for increased security in the US?

I have but looked at it again before I posted.

It's rubbish and offensive to many.
Is freedom of speech greater than the freedom of others not to be insulted?

You have no freedom ‘to not be insulted.’ It is views like this that utterly destroy freedom. You want to essentially remove free speech because something ‘offends’ you. That is nuts.

Let’s say Islam offends me and viewing the Koran offends me. You should not be allowed to openly practice your religion or sell the Koran because I have a made up ‘right’ to not be offended. Of course, according to your logic in the first post, I would have to burn a few buildings down first and maybe kill some people so that there was a monetary impact to your ‘offensive’ practices.

What you are missing is the fact that free people are not going to be punished for exercising that freedom BUT those that try and destroy that freedom are. It is not the paper or the film artist that need to be punished but the worthless people that use them as an excuse to destroy. On a side not, you have failed to understand that the outrage from these people is not a product of the video or paper. It was already there and they are simply using these as scapegoats to attack. If these elements were not present, they would simply find another patsy.

Another thing to mention is that you have not shown where the idiotic YouTube film produced any increased ‘security’ cost or any others. Pssst, the embassy attacks were planned and going to occur weather or not they had some film to blame it on.

 

[Indofred]

You have no freedom ‘to not be insulted.’ .

This is the clean debate zone.
If I were to insult you, my long list of infractions would get one extra red square.
Does that mean my constitution right to insult you is being stamped upon?

Perhaps you could comment.

If I an free to insult you, the movie has the same freedom.
If not, how do you explain the movie maker's right?