Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[BecauseIKnow]

No dear. I am not the one who suggested that the Jordanians are peaceful for money. You need to read more carefully.

You did make that suggestion. Sunni didn't say that you misunderstood him

If I did, please quote it. In full context in the discussion please.

Don't accuse Sunni of saying that because he didnt. You misunderstood him...and I made a whole post which I will list the post number about this issue...Post # 171

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with free speech is that the speech itself has no regulation, with the exception of what the law decrees as "free speech." The problem I have is that this so-called free speech is not meant to prove a point but to incite. In my view, as I have said before, the similitude of what we call free speech today is that of a person yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. These individuals want to cause disturbance and panic and what not, because its not meant for dialogue but to appease the neo-conservatives. When radical muslims act, there is that "see, Islam is dangerous" effect.

There is no genuine dialogue, there is a motive behind all this. This isn't the exercising of free speech in a dialogue. This is the "let's see how many Muslims we can piss off." Freedom of speech is a guise behind all this nonsensical crap we see.

Yes there must be and is restriction on free speech that constitutes libel or slander that materially damages somebody and/or that incites to panic such as crying FIRE in a crowded theater.

But the issue here is whether a person should be restricted from expressing his/her opinion in a way that causes others to riot, destroy property, or terrorize, injure, or murder people. Is the fault with the one expressing an opinion? Or with those responding to the opinion?

And can there be free speech if people can frighten us into not expressing it?

 

[Sunni Man]

I am also putting BecauseIKnow and SunniMan on notice that I will not further respond to posts that do not directly address the issue of free speech and militant Islamic violence as a result of it. I would very much appreciate this thread not being derailed. If BIK can prove I said what he accuses me of, I will apologize for that because I certainly did not intend to say any such thing.

Well aren't you special your royal highness...........

 

[Aristotle]

Sunni Man,

I notice you shy away my criticism of you, and your faith.

Let me ask you something.....

If Islam, or most specifically the Holy Qur'an exercises moderation and restraint, in these recent times why do Muslims react violently?

Let me remind you two things:

1) Free Speech isn't criminal nor a human rights violation. If that were the case Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Jews, would have centuries old case regarding human rights violations

2) Words don't compel people to react violently.

I await your answer.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You know that's not what I am saying or implied.

But that is what you said, wasn't it? If not, then please correct my impresion. What is it that you intended to say when you say that U.S. dollars have kept Jordan peaceful, and when you suggest that Pakistan is less peaceful because it receives less per capita.

What does peaceful mean to you? Bowing down to Israel and what Israel says? You are saying that all Arab countries should shutup and let the dictators rule and do what we want

What is it that Israel says that bothers you?

By the way, since Allah never lets anything happen that is against his will isn't the fact that Israel beat the crap put of everyone in 1967 proof that he wants you to bow down to Israel?

 

[Foxfyre]

But that is what you said, wasn't it? If not, then please correct my impresion. What is it that you intended to say when you say that U.S. dollars have kept Jordan peaceful, and when you suggest that Pakistan is less peaceful because it receives less per capita.

What does peaceful mean to you? Bowing down to Israel and what Israel says? You are saying that all Arab countries should shutup and let the dictators rule and do what we want

What is it that Israel says that bothers you?

By the way, since Allah never lets anything happen that is against his will isn't the fact that Israel beat the crap put of everyone in 1967 proof that he wants you to bow down to Israel?

Come on QW. I'm doing my damndest to get BIK and Sunni off the Israel kick as this thread is not about Israel. Help me out here.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with free speech is that the speech itself has no regulation, with the exception of what the law decrees as "free speech." The problem I have is that this so-called free speech is not meant to prove a point but to incite. In my view, as I have said before, the similitude of what we call free speech today is that of a person yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. These individuals want to cause disturbance and panic and what not, because its not meant for dialogue but to appease the neo-conservatives. When radical muslims act, there is that "see, Islam is dangerous" effect.

There is no genuine dialogue, there is a motive behind all this. This isn't the exercising of free speech in a dialogue. This is the "let's see how many Muslims we can piss off." Freedom of speech is a guise behind all this nonsensical crap we see.

You got that quote wrong. The quote is "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." The key word in that thought is falsely, and is used to distinguish it from speech that is truthful. In other words, if you are telling the truth, it is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to engage in any other type of dangerous speech.

That actually makes the motive irrelevant to the discussion, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with free speech is that the speech itself has no regulation, with the exception of what the law decrees as "free speech." The problem I have is that this so-called free speech is not meant to prove a point but to incite. In my view, as I have said before, the similitude of what we call free speech today is that of a person yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. These individuals want to cause disturbance and panic and what not, because its not meant for dialogue but to appease the neo-conservatives. When radical muslims act, there is that "see, Islam is dangerous" effect.

There is no genuine dialogue, there is a motive behind all this. This isn't the exercising of free speech in a dialogue. This is the "let's see how many Muslims we can piss off." Freedom of speech is a guise behind all this nonsensical crap we see.

Yes there must be and is restriction on free speech that constitutes libel or slander that materially damages somebody and/or that incites to panic such as crying FIRE in a crowded theater.

But the issue here is whether a person should be restricted from expressing his/her opinion in a way that causes others to riot, destroy property, or terrorize, injure, or murder people. Is the fault with the one expressing an opinion? Or with those responding to the opinion?

And can there be free speech if people can frighten us into not expressing it?

See my previous post. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is legal if the intent is to point out that there is a fire in a crowded theater, even if people panic as a result.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What does peaceful mean to you? Bowing down to Israel and what Israel says? You are saying that all Arab countries should shutup and let the dictators rule and do what we want

What is it that Israel says that bothers you?

By the way, since Allah never lets anything happen that is against his will isn't the fact that Israel beat the crap put of everyone in 1967 proof that he wants you to bow down to Israel?

Come on QW. I'm doing my damndest to get BIK and Sunni off the Israel kick as this thread is not about Israel. Help me out here.

If anything will get him of the kick it is me using his own religion against him.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sunni Man,

I notice you shy away my criticism of you, and your faith.

Let me ask you something.....

If Islam, or most specifically the Holy Qur'an exercises moderation and restraint, in these recent times why do Muslims react violently?

Let me remind you two things:

1) Free Speech isn't criminal nor a human rights violation. If that were the case Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Jews, would have centuries old case regarding human rights violations

2) Words don't compel people to react violently.

I await your answer.

I wasn't aware that I shy'd away from anything???

Muslims have endured 2 centuries of colonization by the Western nations and are still bitter about that experience. And the western nations are still over there killing and oppressing them. So they do have a good reason to react violently.

And as for "words don't compel people to act violently"; think Adolph Hitler or Mao.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Foxfre I already answered the topic in post 171. And you ingnored it

 

[Sunni Man]

Come on QW. I'm doing my damndest to get BIK and Sunni off the Israel kick as this thread is not about Israel. Help me out here.

Since Israel is about 90% of the problem in the ME

It's kind of hard to discuss that area of the world without mentioning that fascist state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfre I already answered the topic in post 171. And you ingnored it

No I didn't ignore it because the question of who is the angry militant Islam is answered in the opening post and also by those discussing the actual topic which refers to those Muslims who riot, destroy, injure, and murder people who they believe have insulted them or to retaliate for somebody else insulting them. It is THOSE Muslims that this thread is about.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

None of the protesters murdered anyone. A militant did kill. And rioting and Protesting happens there a lot. It's not such a evil thing that you try to make it be. Those are pissed off Muslims. There's your answer. You don't need to have a 300hundred page discussion about it. Your intention is just to make protesters to be considered as evil criminals. Which is not true. The people who killed were a militsnt group in Libya and are the criminals who Libyans have stormed and went after

 

[Aristotle]

The problem with free speech is that the speech itself has no regulation, with the exception of what the law decrees as "free speech." The problem I have is that this so-called free speech is not meant to prove a point but to incite. In my view, as I have said before, the similitude of what we call free speech today is that of a person yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. These individuals want to cause disturbance and panic and what not, because its not meant for dialogue but to appease the neo-conservatives. When radical muslims act, there is that "see, Islam is dangerous" effect.

There is no genuine dialogue, there is a motive behind all this. This isn't the exercising of free speech in a dialogue. This is the "let's see how many Muslims we can piss off." Freedom of speech is a guise behind all this nonsensical crap we see.

You got that quote wrong. The quote is "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." The key word in that thought is falsely, and is used to distinguish it from speech that is truthful. In other words, if you are telling the truth, it is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to engage in any other type of dangerous speech.

That actually makes the motive irrelevant to the discussion, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

First off, I'm not quoting anyone. But thank you for proving my point. If the motivation is to falsely demonstrate that Islam is dangerous through satire and theater, then it has been achieved. The various depictions of Muhammad is protected speech sure, but what has been said or written or discussed hasn't refuted nothing about Islam. It's all opinion! Saying Muhammad is a pedophile doesn't make Muhammad a pedophile! Making a movie about Muhammad doesn't mean its an accurate depiction of Muhammad.

What they are doing is painting Islam with a tainted brush based on internal feelings. As an agnostic I have to say critics of Islam are doing a poor job convincing me as well as the masses that Islam is a negative religion. So alas, it is screaming fire in a crowded theater. By the way screaming fire in a theater is against the law.

 

[Aristotle]

Sunni Man,

I notice you shy away my criticism of you, and your faith.

Let me ask you something.....

If Islam, or most specifically the Holy Qur'an exercises moderation and restraint, in these recent times why do Muslims react violently?

Let me remind you two things:

1) Free Speech isn't criminal nor a human rights violation. If that were the case Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Jews, would have centuries old case regarding human rights violations

2) Words don't compel people to react violently.

I await your answer.

I wasn't aware that I shy'd away from anything???

Muslims have endured 2 centuries of colonization by the Western nations and are still bitter about that experience. And the western nations are still over there killing and oppressing them. So they do have a good reason to react violently.

And as for "words don't compel people to act violently"; think Adolph Hitler or Mao.

Answer the question....By the way you not addressing my questions directly is shying away from me questioning you. We aren't speaking on colonization we are speaking on actions. Radicals or not how can words compel someone to be violent if the holy doctrine cautions adherents of Islam to act moderately? There is no good reason to act violently. Africans and their descendants were mistreated for over four centuries are the descendants of Africans justified in reacting violently? No. Sunni man I've met some very spiritual Muslims and I'm sure if they read what you just typed they would disagree.

If Allah is all powerful he doesn't need Muslims to act on his/her/its behalf and neither does Muhammad. Reacting violently from being offended by words is never justified. The fact that you find justification to use violence when words (not oppression) is used against Muslims is telling by your mindset. Alas, you are the wrong face of Muslims. You are the prototypical Muslim that people stereotype.

 

[Sunni Man]

I am not trying to win some kind of popularity contest in order to please the secular west.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None of the protesters murdered anyone. A militant did kill. And rioting and Protesting happens there a lot. It's not such a evil thing that you try to make it be. Those are pissed off Muslims. There's your answer. You don't need to have a 300hundred page discussion about it. Your intention is just to make protesters to be considered as evil criminals. Which is not true. The people who killed were a militsnt group in Libya and are the criminals who Libyans have stormed and went after

None of the protestors? Does that include the protestors in Pakistan? Or are you going to pretend that that nobody died there?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

None of the protesters murdered anyone. A militant did kill. And rioting and Protesting happens there a lot. It's not such a evil thing that you try to make it be. Those are pissed off Muslims. There's your answer. You don't need to have a 300hundred page discussion about it. Your intention is just to make protesters to be considered as evil criminals. Which is not true. The people who killed were a militsnt group in Libya and are the criminals who Libyans have stormed and went after

None of the protestors? Does that include the protestors in Pakistan? Or are you going to pretend that that nobody died there?

That's only Pakistan which always seems to have deadly riots. I'm not sure what caused all the deaths. Some deaths blame police. Probably a few due to tear gas. Im gonna look for Pakistani Reports or other reports in a bit. But that still means the protests were generally non violent in most of the middle eastern countries

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with free speech is that the speech itself has no regulation, with the exception of what the law decrees as "free speech." The problem I have is that this so-called free speech is not meant to prove a point but to incite. In my view, as I have said before, the similitude of what we call free speech today is that of a person yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. These individuals want to cause disturbance and panic and what not, because its not meant for dialogue but to appease the neo-conservatives. When radical muslims act, there is that "see, Islam is dangerous" effect.

There is no genuine dialogue, there is a motive behind all this. This isn't the exercising of free speech in a dialogue. This is the "let's see how many Muslims we can piss off." Freedom of speech is a guise behind all this nonsensical crap we see.

You got that quote wrong. The quote is "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater." The key word in that thought is falsely, and is used to distinguish it from speech that is truthful. In other words, if you are telling the truth, it is perfectly legal to yell fire in a crowded theater, or to engage in any other type of dangerous speech.

That actually makes the motive irrelevant to the discussion, which blows your entire argument out of the water.

First off, I'm not quoting anyone. But thank you for proving my point. If the motivation is to falsely demonstrate that Islam is dangerous through satire and theater, then it has been achieved. The various depictions of Muhammad is protected speech sure, but what has been said or written or discussed hasn't refuted nothing about Islam. It's all opinion! Saying Muhammad is a pedophile doesn't make Muhammad a pedophile! Making a movie about Muhammad doesn't mean its an accurate depiction of Muhammad.

What they are doing is painting Islam with a tainted brush based on internal feelings. As an agnostic I have to say critics of Islam are doing a poor job convincing me as well as the masses that Islam is a negative religion. So alas, it is screaming fire in a crowded theater. By the way screaming fire in a theater is against the law.

You were actually misquoting Oliver Wendall Holmes, whether you are aware of it or not. The fact that you are unaware that the quote is wrong and the source of the quote does not absolve you from being wrong.

How did I prove you right? The intent of the speech is completely irrelevant unless the speech is false. Parody and/or satire is neither true nor false, thus the intent of the video is, legally, irrelevant. Strangely enough, even if we assume that the video is both a deliberate lie and that the intent was to cause outrage in the Muslim community, you are still wrong. Even under those circumstances the fact that he is not actually urging anyone to break the law or commit violent acts means he is legally not liable for the resulting backlash.

By the way, screaming fire in a crowded theater is not against the law unless the intent is to cause a panic. If, for example, you are an actor in a play and scream fire, it is always legal. As another example, if the theater is actually on fire, or you believe that it is, it is legal to scream fire even if it causes a panic and it turns out it is not on fire.

The law is never black and white.