People who think mocking Muhammad should be outlawed

Scroll to see replies

oh it is a fact now? where is your factual evidence that there are only two outcomes to freedom of speech and the question regarding the combination of possibilities possible?

Stop being deluded.

Well is it not obvious? You have freedom of speech or you have government dependent speech rights. There is no middle ground, there is freedom and not freedom.

Reply 61

JamesNeedHelp2

Original post by Good bloke

The received western opinion (and the state of UK law) on freedom of expression is that you can say what you like about what you like as long as you don't incite someone to commit a crime, don't slander or libel someone (and that is a civil offence, not criminal), don't incite hatred, don't do something that can obviously cause serious harm like shouting "Fire!" in a crowd when there isn't a fire.

People in this thread are arguing for freedom of expression within the law, not unbridled freedom of expression.

Almost all people who disagree with this stance are religious people and their supporters who don't wish to see their beliefs challenged. Many of them are quite happy to give offence to those who disagree with their views, as you did yesterday, and don't seem to understand the irony of their stance.

The vast majority of people see considerable value in challenging those in authority within the law), political views and religions. Sure, it results in people being offended or challenged but that is a small price to pay for open debate.

Not all countries have such laws, though. If you don't like them there are many that would give you asylum from the oppression you might feel from this situation.

Astonishing, astonishing claims to be making in the 21 century if i may say so, were you attempt to disregard the central dogma of my argument, both today and yesterday. The part i have highlighted in bold above is your subjective opinion. Just like yesterday, you come with these sweeping statements, self serving, selective, a farrago of distortions and misrepresentations. Cherry picked claims, that dont hold true in a critical and academic arena.

If you would kindly, rebuttle my argument that i put forth so elequently yesterday, to which you failed to respond to at all, instead of qouting me today and pretending that you have something other than your baseless opinion to express. Do not get me wrong, you have every right to express your uninformed opinion under freedom of speech!

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 62

Good bloke

[QUOTE=JamesNeedHelp2;52891471 The part i have highlighted in bold above is your subjective opinion.

This is a debate about free speech, not an argument about science. It is entirely subjective opinion on all sides.

There are only about four facts that are relevant: (1) the state of the law of the land in western Europe, (2) some people think their own beliefs and feelings should be protected from attack, (3) some of those people are willing to kill people who don't comply with what they think should happen and (4) western civilisation as a whole (as judged by the mass demonstrations we have seen and the reaction here, on TV and in the papers, is firmly wedded to freedom of speech, despite its flaws.

If you don't believe that fact 4 is a fact just remember that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies free speech as one of them and that the USA and plenty of other countries even have freedom of speech written into their constitution. I don't see a clamour from citizens demanding the right to be censored in what they say, do you? I do see a clamour from people demanding the right to censor what other people say, though, and I find this hypocritical.

Your argument is that people should use the right responsibly. In practice I don't disagree with that particularly but it falls down somewhat as a practical idea in the difficulty of judging what responsibly means. Everyone is entitled to expect other people to obey the law of the land. Nobody has a right not to be exposed to things they find offensive.

I wonder why the adherents of a religion should want to try to make non-adherents behave as the religion requires, especially when there is, supposedly, no compulsion in religion. Perhaps you can tell me.

I defend the right to challenge no matter what offence is caused within the law. Nobody has the right to harm another illegally, and should be condemned unconditionally and without weasel words by everyone, if they do so, including in revenge for a perceived slight, either personal or ideological. The concept of honour killings being acceptable left western culture a long time ago.

When religious people walk around telling atheists or adherents of other religions that they are condemned to eternal damnation for their behaviour and beliefs it seems a bit rich to then complain that criticism of their religion, or the depiction their god or someone who died 1,400 years ago, is the worst offence imaginable. It isn't.

Reply 63

Lady Comstock

Original post by JamesNeedHelp2

I disagree. I think freedom of expression should come with responsibility. If we consult the realm of the world, that is reality, anything but responsible and mature use of this right, that you regard so highly, leads to terror and generally deaths that could be prevented. The charlie hebdo incident, is my observable evidence, and the number of deaths is my quantative evidence.

Freedom of expression should come with responsibility in the form of social civility and general etiquette. It should not be the role of the state to start deciding what is and is not subjectively offensive. That leads to a slippery slope.

Freedom of expression does not lead to terror and death; the acts of extremists with warped minds leads to terror and death. It is not for Charlie Hebdo to stop publishing images of Muhammad in order to give in to fascists and not be attacked, but for the French Government to address how the two brothers became radicalised, how they got so many arms, how they got into the office, etc.

If your mosque is overspilling and you use your right (in England) to pray on the streets outside, and a far-right fascist comes over and shoots you, the question should not be whether or not you should have used your right to observe religious beliefs, but how the far-right fascist got a gun, was allowed to walk the streets, how he became radicalised, etc. The warped mind and acts of the far-right fascist led to your death, not you observing your religious beliefs. Sure, but for you doing what you did, you wouldn't have been the victim; however, that is as immaterial as saying but for me getting on the number 6 bus at 3.30pm, I wouldn't have been involved in a road accident.

You may argue, that the term responsibility is subjective, i mean how would we know what is responsible and what isnt? But i believe it is possible to find guidelines that addresses this subjectivity.

Why do you disagree with this?

There are already rules of social etiquette that most people observe. But it is not for the state to define responsibility in respect of freedom of speech. One person may say it is "responsible" not to use your free expression to publish drawings of Muhammad, whereas another person may say that it is "responsible" not to use your free expression to publish the Qur'an.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 64

mkap

Original post by kushmakush

has anyone of them answered this yet?

come on guys you been aksed this so many times in past days but no one answerd! no double strands now :K:

Im sorry but what have I been asked??

Reply 65

Zamestaneh

Original post by mkap

Im sorry but what have I been asked??

The thread title, apparently :K:

Reply 66

Marco1

If one lives in the Republic of France, whose core values are Freedom, Equality & Fraternity, then you must accept that the French people hold freedom of expression most dearly. It is sad to see the fundamental social principles of such a beautiful, sophisticated, advanced country so attacked from within by a group who will not accept and embrace the same values, on account of some religious argument which amounts to, 'We don't allow it so don't do it'. If you think like that then you don't belong in Europe. Go live somewhere you can integrate and contribute fully, rather than staying in Europe and contributing to its social fragmentation and disharmony.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 67

Pallas Athena

I could not agree more with you,OP.

Reply 68

91_House

Islam should be treated differently because the submission to allah/the divine law is a purer way of life and as such commands respect (if you choose not to you will physically forced to through jihad). Western apes representing judeo christian institutions like the banks, the UK government and even cultural affairs commentators like Jeremy Clarkson should be mocked and pilloried for encouraging greed and filth and decadence - the problems which you westerners are unfortunately still addicted to. We are trying to lift you of your pit and become civilised.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 69

Good bloke

Original post by 91_House

Islam should be treated differently

So here we have it - an argument for special treatment for Islam only.

Western apes representing judeo christian institutions like the banks, the UK government and even cultural affairs commentators like Jeremy Clarkson should be mocked and pilloried

And a follow-up argument that Moslems should be able to make religious, political and personal attacks on others while themselves being protected.

An argument, made under the west's freedom of speech culture that seeks to ban freedom of speech in all but name and that is the ultimate in self-serving hypocrisy.

Thank goodness people like you don't make the decisions.