Free Speech vs an Angry Islamic World

[Katzndogz]

mohammed was a child molester and a thug, but that's beside the point. Who dubbed over the original dialogue?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

You can easily tell by watching the video. Muhammad is dubbed in there. The real name was Master George. Read their lips they say master goerge. And Muhamamd is synced in there

 

[BecauseIKnow]

mohammed was a child molester and a thug, but that's beside the point. Who dubbed over the original dialogue?

I can argue against that. But that's not the point.

 

[Katzndogz]

mohammed was a child molester and a thug, but that's beside the point. Who dubbed over the original dialogue?

I can argue against that. But that's not the point.

Not if the point is the dubbed dialogue. Who did it? Is there any proof that it was the man who originally made the film?

If some militant anti islamic dubbed over the actor's words in Star Wars so that instead of "I'm your father" Darth Vader said "I'm mohammed" whose fault would it be? The original filmmaker may indeed have done it, but is there any proof of that?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

mohammed was a child molester and a thug, but that's beside the point. Who dubbed over the original dialogue?

I can argue against that. But that's not the point.

Not if the point is the dubbed dialogue. Who did it? Is there any proof that it was the man who originally made the film?

If some militant anti islamic dubbed over the actor's words in Star Wars so that instead of "I'm your father" Darth Vader said "I'm mohammed" whose fault would it be? The original filmmaker may indeed have done it, but is there any proof of that?

Watch the video and you can tell. And I said I can argue against what you said on Muhammad. Learn some respect by now. I've argued it in many threads with you to yet you repeat it. whatever......he will admit in a while...if the actors are telling you what more proof do you need?

 

[Katzndogz]

I can argue against that. But that's not the point.

Not if the point is the dubbed dialogue. Who did it? Is there any proof that it was the man who originally made the film?

If some militant anti islamic dubbed over the actor's words in Star Wars so that instead of "I'm your father" Darth Vader said "I'm mohammed" whose fault would it be? The original filmmaker may indeed have done it, but is there any proof of that?

Watch the video and you can tell. And I said I can argue against what you said on Muhammad. Learn some respect by now. I've argued it in many threads with you to yet you repeat it. whatever......he will admit in a while...if the actors are telling you what more proof do you need?

The actors are really saying they don't know. You can tell the dialogue is dubbed, but you certainly cannot tell who did it. Now just go on and prove that it was the film maker. Not that it was done so he must have done it, but proof that he did.

I can show respect, or not show respect, for anyone I choose and I choose to call mohammed a pig fucker who raped a 9 year old girl.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since Nakoula Nakoula was questioned and released, it seems that the government can't prove that he had anything to do with the dubbed dialogue OR that he posted it to the internet.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is not a smear unless you have evidence that something in the film is dishonest. That would be impossible for you to prove for two reasons, nothing in the video trailer is factually inaccurate, and no one has seen the actual film, if it exists.

The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Not if the point is the dubbed dialogue. Who did it? Is there any proof that it was the man who originally made the film?

If some militant anti islamic dubbed over the actor's words in Star Wars so that instead of "I'm your father" Darth Vader said "I'm mohammed" whose fault would it be? The original filmmaker may indeed have done it, but is there any proof of that?

Watch the video and you can tell. And I said I can argue against what you said on Muhammad. Learn some respect by now. I've argued it in many threads with you to yet you repeat it. whatever......he will admit in a while...if the actors are telling you what more proof do you need?

The actors are really saying they don't know. You can tell the dialogue is dubbed, but you certainly cannot tell who did it. Now just go on and prove that it was the film maker. Not that it was done so he must have done it, but proof that he did.

I can show respect, or not show respect, for anyone I choose and I choose to call mohammed a pig fucker who raped a 9 year old girl.

I can argue against that and have already maybe like 10 times with you. You can choose to be pathetic. And it was the filmmaker who else would dub it?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

The actors have already spoken out. The film was originally titled "desert warrior" factually dishonest. Second, the actual voices were dubbed over factually dishonest. The writer may have violated his probation. Factually dishonest. I saw the 14 minute video. Voices were dubbed over. The actress that spoke out said that the voice that was dubbed over her's wasn't even her voice. She said even in the script there was no mention of Muhammad at all. Factually dishonest. How much more proof do you need?

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

 

[Foxfyre]

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

I agree but in our culture there is freedom of speech that includes the right to hold opinions others find insulting. How does that give Muslims a right to destroy and/or terrorize and/or murder people who had absolutely nothing to do with the film? Or even those who did put out the film?

And if Muslims are allowed to terroize us into moderating our speech, what else could they be allowed to terrorize us into doing or not doing?

 

[Intense]

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

It is still Constitutionally Protected Speech. Look at the Israel/Palestine Forum here. The Movie pales in comparison to what goes on there. Bottom line, We All need thicker skins. That, and there really is no match to Civility, and the "Golden Rule". Islam does need Reform. No One should take offense to that. Bottom Line, We Each need Reform. Enlightenment, is a Life Long Process. Putting God First in All Things, Requires letting go of All misconceptions, as the Truth is Revealed and Validated, from within. In Truth, it's one of the Few things, We have control over. We All need Reform. It is a constant process.

 

[Katzndogz]

My concern here is not the Free Speech issue, but the Film Makers, disregard for the Cast's safety and future. Putting People at risk, without consent, is pretty lame.

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

So were the French cartoons and the Danish cartoons before that. Muslims still haven't gotten the message. They need more.

In response to muslim men raping women in Australia, an Imam said that women who dressed immodestly were like meat left out for cats. If they didn't want to be raped, they would wear muslim approved clothing for women. The answer would be for women to wear whatever they wished and be armed at all times.

 

[Intense]

A Big, Protective dog can also be very handy.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

I agree but in our culture there is freedom of speech that includes the right to hold opinions others find insulting. How does that give Muslims a right to destroy and/or terrorize and/or murder people who had absolutely nothing to do with the film? Or even those who did put out the film?

And if Muslims are allowed to terroize us into moderating our speech, what else could they be allowed to terrorize us into doing or not doing?

What do you mean "our" culture? It wasn't because your culture freedom of speech was allowed.

Protesting isn't terororism. That attack with RPGs was. Muslims didn't change absolutely nothing about our freedom of speech. They just encouraged more people to do that. But they should just forget about it.

Muslim countries don't allow insults against any Prophet of the God of Abraham because it is not needed. Pathetic sick people do that. I'm not fine with going rioting at an embassy. That's not needed. Holding up signs and condemning the man and the film. Would have been the best thing. Acting stupid and yelling isn't the way to go. But are you seriously scared of people yelling on tv? I've been to Egypt a bit after the revolutions. There is nothing scary about people yelling. You need to grow up a bit.

The people who are out there to demonize Muslims should a message sent to them by Muslims. Its stupid to keep making anti Muslim movies that have no intention other than demonizng Muslims and are made by racist anti Islam people. That said they can be allowed all they want but they are overdoing it.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Yes it is, and it is not only lame but unconscionable. But I doubt that there is any controversy here whether it is unethical to depict people's words in dishonest ways. Most especially when it puts those people at risk without their consent. I don't think anybody will agree that is okay. But that is a different subject. (As is the fact that there are Muslims, probably most Muslims, who are not angry or murderous.)

But I keep pulling us back to the very heart of the paradox expressed in the OP. We now know that any words or graphic or portrayal perceived as insult to the Islamic prophet, Mohammed, will almost certainly result in violent retaliation from angry militant Muslims. So if we restrict free speech so as not to incur that often deadly violence, do the angry militant Muslims win? And how much could other freedoms be eroded if we give in to that kind of threat?

But that is balanced against the ethics of our free speech triggering violence that causes violence to people who had nothing at all to do with our speech.

Many here say that it is never the fault of those whose speech is used as the reason for the violence, but it is wholly the fault of those who commit it. That is hard to argue with.

At the same time, if we have the responsibility not to incite panic in a crowded theater, is there comparable responsibility not to incite anger that results in violence to innocent others who did not give consent to have their lives or property placed in danger?

Is there any honorable way to deal with this without giving in to threats from the angry Islamic world out there?

No one made the film for freedom of speech. Their intentions were to insult Muslims and send the a message.

It is still Constitutionally Protected Speech. Look at the Israel/Palestine Forum here. The Movie pales in comparison to what goes on there. Bottom line, We All need thicker skins. That, and there really is no match to Civility, and the "Golden Rule". Islam does need Reform. No One should take offense to that. Bottom Line, We Each need Reform. Enlightenment, is a Life Long Process. Putting God First in All Things, Requires letting go of All misconceptions, as the Truth is Revealed and Validated, from within. In Truth, it's one of the Few things, We have control over. We All need Reform. It is a constant process.

It will get better over time. But trolls that make movies like this shouldn't be respected at all

 

[Foxfyre]

Since Nakoula Nakoula was questioned and released, it seems that the government can't prove that he had anything to do with the dubbed dialogue OR that he posted it to the internet.

So still dragging the train back onto the tracks here, WHO put out the offensive film is not the issue in this thread and is being thoroughly debated elsewhere.

Let's refocus on ANYTHING by ANYBODY that seems to ridicule or otherwise insult ANYBODY and whether there should be restrictions, ethically or legally, placed on that. When there are people willing to riot, destroy, assault, and murder people because they feel insulted, do we give in to that kind of threat to protect the innocent?

Can there be free speech when anybody can be silenced by the threat of angry violence?

At the same time, how much should we be allowed to put the innocent at risk of violence from angry mobs? In years past it might have been deadly riots generated by a Rodney King issue or even winning sports fans who get out of hand.

Currently it is widespread violence by an Islamic world in which angry mobs are being stirred up with a stupid Youtube video.

Again, can there be free speech when anybody can be silenced by the threat of angry violence?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Hey foxfre you talk about the threats for making these movies. But you know that these movies that are so bigoted and full of propaganda can cause people to assualt Muslims becaue they actually believe that nonsense. So what about the threats Muslims face after these kind of hate movies, articles, whatever, is it ok that Muslims could be threatened over this stuff?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hey foxfre you talk about the threats for making these movies. But you know that these movies that are so bigoted and full of propaganda can cause people to assualt Muslims becaue they actually believe that nonsense. So what about the threats Muslims face after these kind of hate movies, articles, whatever, is it ok that Muslims could be threatened over this stuff?

No. I think bigoted thugs who commit violence against Muslims for no better reason than they are Muslims and embrace Muslim beliefs should not only be held in total contempt but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I do not condone nor do I respect violence committed against anybody for what they say, believe, think, or express and I will condemn it without reservation wherever it occurs.

But should Muslims be required to refrain from calling us Christians infidels just because some Chrstians might be insulted by that? Should people be able to make fun of Christians or ridicule the central figure of that faith with impunity? Or is it reasonable that Christians should riot, destroy property, injure, or kills people in retaliation for that? Does ridicule or insult of Christians put those people at mortal risk?

Where is it written that Muslims should be exempt from insult when others are not?

The issue here is not the insult. The issue is mayhem and murder committed by the insulted. Condemnable? Or not?

Can there be freedom when speech can be silenced by threat of murderous violence?

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Hey foxfre you talk about the threats for making these movies. But you know that these movies that are so bigoted and full of propaganda can cause people to assualt Muslims becaue they actually believe that nonsense. So what about the threats Muslims face after these kind of hate movies, articles, whatever, is it ok that Muslims could be threatened over this stuff?

No. I think bigoted thugs who commit violence against Muslims for no better reason than they are Muslims and embrace Muslim beliefs should not only be held in total contempt but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I do not condone nor do I respect violence committed against anybody for what they say, believe, think, or express and I will condemn it without reservation wherever it occurs.

But should Muslims be required to refrain from calling us Christians infidels just because some Chrstians might be insulted by that? Should people be able to make fun of Christians or ridicule the central figure of that faith with impunity? Or is it reasonable that Christians should riot, destroy property, injure, or kills people in retaliation for that? Does ridicule or insult of Christians put those people at mortal risk?

Where is it written that Muslims should be exempt from insult when others are not?

The issue here is not the insult. The issue is mayhem and murder committed by the insulted. Condemnable? Or not?

Muslims don't call Christians infidels at all. I see where you are going with this now....again you can't generalize very few people went protesting. Rioting isn't out businees they riot against their own property the police decide the punishments there.

Dont ask that silly question again. Rioting, yelling , whatever isnt bad. That happens a lot in the middle east. As long as they don't damage the embassy. If they do the country pays to replace the damage done. End of story

You're so funny what because a few thousand protesters chanted in the streets it's mayhem? Haha wow