Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

People who think mocking Muhammad should be outlawed watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I have seen a number of people on TSR demand that mocking/insulting/satirising/even criticising Muhammad be outlawed, and that freedom of expression should not apply. But then, I have seen the same members post stuff that could be construed as offensive, either at people they respond to or in respect of Charlie Hebdo.

    You can't have it both ways. You cannot expect the state to outlaw satire about Muhammad because it's offensive to you, but then think you should be free to say offensive things or to practise your religion freely.

    Offensiveness is entirely subjective and relative. The following could be considered offensive, and thereby liable to being outlawed under this logic:

    • Satire about Muhammad = offensive = outlawed.
    • Posting insults or mocks on TSR = offensive = outlawed.
    • Insulting the government = offensive = outlawed.
    • Mocking the BNP or the EDL for their foolishness = offensive = outlawed.
    • The Qur'an for its passages about homosexuality and non-believers = offensive = outlawed.

    There is also a fine line between criticism and offence. Saying that 9/11 was an inside job may seem critical on the surface, but people could take offence at such a comment. Should people be arrested for saying that 9/11 was an inside job?

    So, I think people need to think before they start demanding that "offensive" things (to them) be outlawed. My question would be: have you ever posted or said anything that someone could subjectively find offensive?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I quite agree, and couldn't have worded it more eloquently myself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    anyone who says that should **** off to Saudi Arabia
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed, but just as pertinent is that just because something isn't illegal doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It shouldnt be outlawed in non-muslim countries, but who does it anyway? i couldnt care less about islam as a religion but i've never done it, and i dont know why anyone else would, clearly they are all ****ing touchy about the subject and use it as an excuse to kill people so what's the point
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes it should be, and already is

    If I started ranting about how evil Islam is at work I would be sacked for racism
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    We will always have free speech here, regardless of whether religious people throw tantrums any time someone takes the piss out of their precious Prophet or god.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Yes it should be, and already is
    That doesn't make sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Yes it should be, and already is

    If I started ranting about how evil Islam is at work I would be sacked for racism
    That would be the private decision of an employer. Such conduct would not be illegal unless it ventured into harassment or threatening behaviour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It more a case of an individual doing that on here is not paid full time to be a 'satirist' who seems to delight in knowingly causing offence by sexual depictions of a religious figure.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    We will always have free speech here, regardless of whether religious people throw tantrums any time someone takes the piss out of their precious Prophet or god.
    Don't count on it. I think we're already on a slippery slope, lets see what happens as time goes on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    It more a case of an individual doing that on here is not paid full time to be a 'satirist' who seems to delight in knowingly causing offence by sexual depictions of a religious figure.
    What has payment got to do with this? What an irrelevant point... people still end up "offended".
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by democracyforum)
    Yes it should be, and already is

    If I started ranting about how evil Islam is at work I would be sacked for racism
    There is a time and place to exercise your freedom of speech it requires common sense. It is not because holding those views is outlawed or illegal though perhaps frowned upon it is because unless those views are relevant to the job you are doing you should keep those views out of your work place. Because while you have a right to freedom of speech your colleagues have a right to work in an environment where they do not feel uncomfortable or discriminated against.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    What has payment got to do with this? What an irrelevant point... people still end up "offended".
    Is there any example of anyone inventing a sexually explicit situation about a religious figure on TSR? Or any sign that a particular individual would feel a desire to imagine that?

    Someone who doesn't believe in a particular religion might find its iconography tacky enough in its own right without having to invent an explicitly sexual scenario in it like some crude attempt at falsifying a religious figure through profane mockery.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nogoodsorgods)
    Is there any example of anyone inventing a sexually explicit situation about a religious figure on TSR? Or any sign that a particular individual would feel a desire to imagine that?
    I have seen posts on TSR that are more mocking of Muhammad than a sexual satirical image could ever be.

    Regardless, the point is that offence is wholly subjective.

    A Muslim who is pretty much only culturally Muslim and may not really bother with the requirements may be utterly indifferent to a satirical image of Muhammad.

    Whereas, a gay rights activist may be utterly offended to the point of rage by some of the references to homosexuality in Islamic texts. Just as another gay person may not really care.

    Offence is completely relative.

    Someone who doesn't believe in a particular religion might find its iconography tacky enough in its own right without having to invent an explicitly sexual scenario in it like some crude attempt at falsifying a religious figure through profane mockery.
    There is a lot worse sexual imagery out there than that. A lot, even in the mainstream media.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)

    Regardless, the point is that offence is wholly subjective.
    Good because I am very tempted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    has anyone of them answered this yet?

    (Original post by help!!!!!!!!!)
    ...
    (Original post by SophiaLDN)
    ...
    (Original post by mkap)
    ...
    (Original post by al_94)
    ...
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    ...
    (Original post by HeavyTeddy)
    ...
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    ...
    come on guys you been aksed this so many times in past days but no one answerd! no double strands now
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    We will always have free speech here, regardless of whether religious people throw tantrums any time someone takes the piss out of their precious Prophet or god.
    Any normal decent person would not try to purposefully annoy people; it's within people's rights to say bad things but tbh only dicks exercise that right in such a way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em.d_4)
    There is a time and place to exercise your freedom of speech it requires common sense. It is not because holding those views is outlawed or illegal though perhaps frowned upon it is because unless those views are relevant to the job you are doing you should keep those views out of your work place. Because while you have a right to freedom of speech your colleagues have a right to work in an environment where they do not feel uncomfortable or discriminated against.
    This is how you dig a massive whole for yourself to drown in.

    Either people have the freedom of speech or they don't. Saying people have the "right" to constrain other peoples freedom of speech means they don't have freedom of speech. However this is normal muddle secularist get themselves in attempting to create morality from nothing. All they are doing is increasing the power of the government and creating a terrible tyranny the Protestants got rid of with the Glorious Revolution.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    There's double standards in the west. Mocking the prophet comes under freedom of expression but if Charlie Hebdo was to mock the holocaust, I doubt people would cry "je suis Charlie", so freedom of expression applies only when it suits certain people. France is not a tolerant country, some people can't even practise their faith in public because they are fined or arrested but mocking and insulting their beliefs isn't outlawed, freedom of expression, belief and religion should apply to all.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.