quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
And Mr Romney seeks to make political capital out of it as, it seems, only he can. What a piece of work this guy is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
And Mr Romney seeks to make political capital out of it as, it seems, only he can. What a piece of work this guy is.

---

And he did it before midnight on the day he'd pledged to do no campaigning.
t.

---

He lied. Just like he lies about Obama. He is pandering to the racist bigots who want to kick out the Muslim nigger (as they would call him) but he can't say that straight out on TV so he resorts to sleazy dog-whistles.
 

---

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
Just as a heads up, I started a Styx thread related to the prior post.

Prayers for the people involved, and the families of the deceased.
 

---

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
He lied. Just like he lies about Obama. He is pandering to the racist bigots who want to kick out the Muslim nigger (as they would call him) but he can't say that straight out on TV so he resorts to sleazy dog-whistles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Ken did not say all Republicans are racists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
How could I have assumed that ken thinks there are such a large racist minority that it is worth specifically speaking to them in a speech like this? I have no idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Not all republicans are racists, but racists are overwhelmingly republican.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
And Mr Romney seeks to make political capital out of it as, it seems, only he can. What a piece of work this guy is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Ken did not say all Republicans are racists.

---

Oh yeah, sorry, he said that Presidential candidate is pandering to the racists in his own party. My mistake.

How could I have assumed that ken thinks there are such a large racist minority that it is worth specifically speaking to them in a speech like this? I have no idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Romeny panders to the birthers in the form of jokes and Donald Trump. Birther movement has strong racist ties, so not much of a stretch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Romeny panders to the birthers in the form of jokes and Donald Trump. Birther movement has strong racist ties, so not much of a stretch.

---

What about that joke Obama made the other day about birth certificates? Is he a racist now?

---

It shows he has a sense of humor in the face of racism - even after 6 long, tiring years of conspiracy theorist attacks on his proven citizenship. Not a bad quality to have.

Romney, unlike McCain has not ordered his campaign staff to stop with those attacks and he can make a "joke" knowing it just fans the flames. I have a lot more respect for McCain then Romney. Romney will go with proven falsehoods "because it works" whereas McCain shut them down.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Re the murders and the response to the film:

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around either the Libyan response, or the non-lethal Cairo response. (Or, for that matter, the handling of the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.)

Granted, I've grown up in a country that's supposed to prize religious freedom (even if that's often been applied only to Christians ). Many people here got very upset over Scorcese's "Last Temptation Of Christ", but I don't remember the reaction being anywhere near as bad as the reaction to the anti-Mohammed film.

I know there's speculation that the Libyan protest was meant to be non-lethal, too, but was taken over by extremists. But I still don't get the severity of the non-lethal parts of either protest. Or many of the other Muslim protests I've seen on TV over the years. Some may have been staged, but all of them???


I don't have the specific cultural/religious knowledge to sort this out. Can anyone help, please???

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Apparently there are questions about the identity of the director.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Re the murders and the response to the film:

I have a hard time wrapping my mind around either the Libyan response, or the non-lethal Cairo response. (Or, for that matter, the handling of the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.)

Granted, I've grown up in a country that's supposed to prize religious freedom (even if that's often been applied only to Christians ). Many people here got very upset over Scorcese's "Last Temptation Of Christ", but I don't remember the reaction being anywhere near as bad as the reaction to the anti-Mohammed film.

I know there's speculation that the Libyan protest was meant to be non-lethal, too, but was taken over by extremists. But I still don't get the severity of the non-lethal parts of either protest. Or many of the other Muslim protests I've seen on TV over the years. Some may have been staged, but all of them???


I don't have the specific cultural/religious knowledge to sort this out. Can anyone help, please???

Thanks!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Apparently there are questions about the identity of the director.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, a po-faced condemnation of those who made the film, and a petty, partisan, parochial, opportunistic attack on a politician who misreported it.

---

1. The people who made the "po-faced condemnation" had people outside the doors with pitchforks and torches. They were trying to save their skins. Attacking them for trying to save their skins is cowardly and base.

2. Romney didn't "misreport" it. Give me a fucking break. HE ATTACKED OBAMA over it. An opportunistic, partisan attack. My God. Are you intentionally lying about this, or have you been deceived?
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (# 12163) on :
 
Films like this, in the current situation in the Middle East, are like pouring petrol in copious amounts on a blazing bonfire.

Of course Al Quaida and similar would not see the film as funny. That's a no brainer.

Of course all rational people are aghast at the death of the American ambassador and colleagues in Benghazi.

What was in play was the ghastly old Arab tradition from the days well before Islam of totally out of proportion revenge for a slight on "my" people, honour etc. by one of "your" people: this is taking tribalism - a very important part of Arab and Libyan life - to utter extremes.

My horror at the murders, prayers for the deceased and sympathy for their relatives.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.

---

Apologies if I am wrong, but I think this is the first reference on the Ship to this appalling and heart-wrenching situation.

Which is disturbingly exposing.

---

I'm not sure if it's been discussed, Kaplan, and we probably shouldn't detour this thread. But if you search on something like "girl jailed for desecrating Koran" and maybe add "imam" to it, you should find info. Don't remember what country the girl is in.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Pakistan,the girl has been bailed and the imam has been arrested - but it is believed she and her family remain at risk from the community in which they live.
 

---

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I certainly deplore the violence of the reaction, but what were the Copts who made the film thinking of? They certainly won't be helping the cause of those remaining in Egypt, who are having a particularly hard time since the overthrow of Mubarak.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks, DT. I'd heard that the family and Christian community were still getting threats.

I don't know much about Sharia law...but if the imam is found guilty of both framing an innocent person and desecrating the Koran...

 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gee D--

From what I've heard on the news, it's not at all clear who's behind the making of the film. I saw one of the actresses (on ABC's "Nightline"--that's the American ABC), and she said the actors were all tricked--the script (which was shown) used the name of "George" instead of Mohammed, and new words were dubbed in. Per the actress, it was supposed to be a film about long-ago times. (Though calling anyone from back then "George" would raise a red flag for me...but maybe the actors didn't know any better, or previously played badly-written scripts.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, a po-faced condemnation of those who made the film, and a petty, partisan, parochial, opportunistic attack on a politician who misreported it.

---

1. The people who made the "po-faced condemnation" had people outside the doors with pitchforks and torches. They were trying to save their skins. Attacking them for trying to save their skins is cowardly and base.

2. Romney didn't "misreport" it. Give me a fucking break. HE ATTACKED OBAMA over it. An opportunistic, partisan attack. My God. Are you intentionally lying about this, or have you been deceived?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
That's funny!

Has anyone asked "Where was security?"
Or were they all in red velour shits and got messed up in a "transporter malfunction" or died on "re-materialisation" a la Star Trek...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, a po-faced condemnation of those who made the film, and a petty, partisan, parochial, opportunistic attack on a politician who misreported it.

---

1. The people who made the "po-faced condemnation" had people outside the doors with pitchforks and torches. They were trying to save their skins. Attacking them for trying to save their skins is cowardly and base.

2. Romney didn't "misreport" it. Give me a fucking break. HE ATTACKED OBAMA over it. An opportunistic, partisan attack. My God. Are you intentionally lying about this, or have you been deceived?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
Gee D--

From what I've heard on the news, it's not at all clear who's behind the making of the film. I saw one of the actresses (on ABC's "Nightline"--that's the American ABC), and she said the actors were all tricked--the script (which was shown) used the name of "George" instead of Mohammed, and new words were dubbed in. Per the actress, it was supposed to be a film about long-ago times. (Though calling anyone from back then "George" would raise a red flag for me...but maybe the actors didn't know any better, or previously played badly-written scripts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
No, a po-faced condemnation of those who made the film, and a petty, partisan, parochial, opportunistic attack on a politician who misreported it.

---

1. The people who made the "po-faced condemnation" had people outside the doors with pitchforks and torches. They were trying to save their skins. Attacking them for trying to save their skins is cowardly and base.

2. Romney didn't "misreport" it. Give me a fucking break. HE ATTACKED OBAMA over it. An opportunistic, partisan attack. My God. Are you intentionally lying about this, or have you been deceived?

---

1. I was referring to those on the Ship who condemned the film, none of whom to the best of my knowledge were being threatened with "pitchforks and torches".

The point is not whether the film is any good - from what I have seen of it online it is pretty crappy - but that on an occasion such as this, the absolute priority is to assert the principle (whether or not Voltaire actually said it) of "I might not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

2. Once more, a breathtaking talent for missing the point, which is the murderous intolerance itself, not how some politician might be exploiting it, however unscrupulously.

Whenever anyone is forced to resort to capital letters in a post, I am reminded of the old story of the clergyman who wrote in the margin of his sermon notes; "Argument weak at this point; shout louder".

---

quote:

---

Films like this, in the current situation in the Middle East, are like pouring petrol in copious amounts on a blazing bonfire.

---

quote:

---

I certainly deplore the violence of the reaction, but what were the Copts who made the film thinking of? They certainly won't be helping the cause of those remaining in Egypt, who are having a particularly hard time since the overthrow of Mubarak.

---

quote:

---

I don't think anyone here has condemned the film, but rather that with the history and culture of the countries involved it was the height of negligence for the most offensive parts to be translated into Arabic and released to the countries that are in the midst of instability with those that would use it. It didn't take a rocket scientist to anticipate what the results would be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
A film, seemingly deliberately designed to offend, does more than any mere words. We are not talking polite inter-religious dialogue here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
The actors did not physically attack anyone. They did not damage anyone's property. They spoke mere words.

The fact that the result caused violence does not change the fact that the violence was a response to words. I think my question still stands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
If there were people being violent because of the use of individual words, then that would be extremely difficult to do something about.

But that isn't the situation we're in. We have a situation where someone is deliberately making and publicising a film which is designed to offend people who are known to be violent.

With regard to this website, that'd be more similar to someone publicising a video of Jesus doing something disgusting to Simon Peter and claiming that to be the only legitimate understanding of scripture when they know that would cause people to be violent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So just to be absolutely clear here. If someone got beaten up because of such a film you would partly blame the film makers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So just to be absolutely clear here. If someone got beaten up because of such a film you would partly blame the film makers?

---

Those who committed the violence have the blame, but if I were a film maker I and were making a movie that was going to be intentionally offensive about a people whose culture of honor and revenge (it's throughout the ME, not just Muslims), oppressed history and history of violent extremism made it very likely others, especially my own countrymen who were actually trying to bring positive change in the region would die because of it, I like to think I'd exercise some responsibility towards those I may have put in harms way because of my work. Kind of like the not shouting fire in a crowded theater. And if I went ahead with it I wouldn't hide like a coward behind an assumed name while other people are at risk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
We went round the houses on this issue IIRC on the Terry Jones thread in Hell some months ago. I think I argued there that the responsibility for the violence lay mainly if not exclusively with...er...the violent people, strangely enough...

Same here. If the offence was the problem, then you would have expected the protests over The Last Temptation of Christ and Jerry Springer, the Opera to have resulted in RPGs and buildings being burned down. So, it ain't the offence that's the issue, but the violence inherent in some of the people taking that offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So just to be absolutely clear here. If someone got beaten up because of such a film you would partly blame the film makers?

---

Those who committed the violence have the blame, but if I were a film maker I and were making a movie that was going to be intentionally offensive about a people whose culture of honor and revenge (it's throughout the ME, not just Muslims), oppressed history and history of violent extremism made it very likely others, especially my own countrymen who were actually trying to bring positive change in the region would die because of it, I like to think I'd exercise some responsibility towards those I may have put in harms way because of my work. Kind of like the not shouting fire in a crowded theater. And if I went ahead with it I wouldn't hide like a coward behind an assumed name while other people are at risk.

---

Isn't that a bit like saying might makes right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Nope, it's being cognizant of the environment, people, etc. and trying to be responsible in what you do and say - especially when there is eminent possibility that others could be hurt or killed. Again, the yelling "Fire!" in the theater. Doesn't make those who do the act of violence not culpable. Just means I wish people would think more before they act when they're putting others in the crosshairs. This one didn't even have the guts to stand by his own work and ID himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.

---

Apologies if I am wrong, but I think this is the first reference on the Ship to this appalling and heart-wrenching situation.

Which is disturbingly exposing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Nope, it's being cognizant of the environment, people, etc. and trying to be responsible in what you do and say - especially when there is eminent possibility that others could be hurt or killed. Again, the yelling "Fire!" in the theater. Doesn't make those who do the act of violence not culpable. Just means I wish people would think more before they act when they're putting others in the crosshairs. This one didn't even have the guts to stand by his own work and ID himself.

---

So if a group were to violently protest whenever
someone preached the gospel should people be "cognizant of the environment, people, etc" and not preach?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
This all sounds like very good news for anyone who wants to get their own way by threatening innocent people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The film makers are traitorous assassins by proxy. Murderers.

And where were the marines?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The film makers are traitorous assassins by proxy. Murderers.

And where were the marines?

---

...................wut?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:
the Christian girl with learning or developmental disabilities who allegedly threw away pages of the Koran...and may have been set up by an imam.

---

Apologies if I am wrong, but I think this is the first reference on the Ship to this appalling and heart-wrenching situation.

Which is disturbingly exposing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do we just repeatedly keep giving in? Giving up ground? Again where do we draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do we just repeatedly keep giving in? Giving up ground? Again where do we draw the line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do we just repeatedly keep giving in? Giving up ground? Again where do we draw the line?

---

I've seen you discuss things here on the ship, your arguments are not generally this daft.

This was not a comparative religion lecture, not a zealous preacher; this was a deliberate provocation. The very essence of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl:
Nope, it's being cognizant of the environment, people, etc. and trying to be responsible in what you do and say - especially when there is eminent possibility that others could be hurt or killed. Again, the yelling "Fire!" in the theater. Doesn't make those who do the act of violence not culpable. Just means I wish people would think more before they act when they're putting others in the crosshairs. This one didn't even have the guts to stand by his own work and ID himself.

---

So if a group were to violently protest whenever
someone preached the gospel should people be "cognizant of the environment, people, etc" and not preach?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do we just repeatedly keep giving in? Giving up ground? Again where do we draw the line?

---

I've seen you discuss things here on the ship, your arguments are not generally this daft.

This was not a comparative religion lecture, not a zealous preacher; this was a deliberate provocation. The very essence of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

---

It's true I'm very riled up by this. What makes me so angry is the idea that the mob that commits violence gets to decide what's right or wrong for other people to say. The reason I keep going on about drawing a line is because inside I'm begging someone/anyone to give a case where they finally say, enough is enough, im not going to let murderers have all the power in this situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So just to be absolutely clear here. If someone got beaten up because of such a film you would partly blame the film makers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So just to be absolutely clear here. If someone got beaten up because of such a film you would partly blame the film makers?

---

Suppose it emerged that an Islamic extremist had in fact financed the film in order to provoke this incident. In that case I presume you would think that the filmmaker should be partly blamed?(*)

Suppose it emerged that the CIA or Israeli government had financed the film in order to provoke this incident to use as a casus belli(**) against Iran. In that case I presume you would think that the filmmaker should be partly blamed?

In general, what it is wrong to do intentionally it is also wrong, if less so, to do through negligence or disregard of the consequences. Wrong intentions are wrong because they are intentions to do wrong things.

So there's a case that the filmmaker is in some way responsible for the deaths through negligence.

Now there's a principle that one's not responsible for unintended but foreseen effects of one's morally permissible actions if one has taken reasonable steps to mitigate them. But invoking that principle supposes that this film was morally permissible. And by all accounts this film was in itself a piece of hate speech. If it was in itself morally blameworthy, then it doesn't protect the filmmaker from blame for the unintended consequences of his actions (assuming that he didn't intend to provoke a violent response).

(*) Partly is a funny word here. It's not as if there's a fixed amount of blame for any action, such that if two people are accomplices in a murder each is only half to blame. If one person has another commit murder each person is wholly to blame.

(**) cause for war

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Oh yeah, sorry, he said that Presidential candidate is pandering to the racists in his own party. My mistake.

How could I have assumed that ken thinks there are such a large racist minority that it is worth specifically speaking to them in a speech like this? I have no idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do we just repeatedly keep giving in? Giving up ground? Again where do we draw the line?

---

I've seen you discuss things here on the ship, your arguments are not generally this daft.

This was not a comparative religion lecture, not a zealous preacher; this was a deliberate provocation. The very essence of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Apparently, "Sam Bacile" is in fact, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian living in California.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Apparently, "Sam Bacile" is in fact, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian living in California.

---

Marvellous. As if the Copts don't have enough problems already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
You see. I don't think the fact that the movie was mocking and made to offend makes any difference.

There are many things in this life that offend me. If someone told a joke or made an insult I found offensive I would not asume the right to comit violence.

There is a long tradition of people using mockery to attack despots. It would be a sad day indeed if that tradation were to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Apparently, "Sam Bacile" is in fact, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian living in California.

---

Marvellous. As if the Copts don't have enough problems already.

---

Yeah, it kind of problematizes the idea that this video was created with the direct intent of provoking violence. Since Copts in Egypt would be top of the list for any such violent retribution, even if the mob didn't know the producer was Coptic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Here's my problem. I start with the opinion that it's wrong to react to words with murder.

---

quote:

---

I also believe that if people are allowed to control others words via murder you have a sort of hostage? control by terror situation? The counter arguments I'm reading here don't seem to make these inital wrongs any less wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

This was not a comparative religion lecture, not a zealous preacher; this was a deliberate provocation. The very essence of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

---

You mean like when the Free Syrian Army desecrated that church in Homs, and there was that wave of anti-Arab violence across the United States?



Look, agreed that the filmmakers are bigots, the film is crap, and the whole enterprise is mean-spirited and reckless. Agreed that this is not how Christians or Jews should behave. But the primary responsibility for the murders is on the mob. Reasonable human beings don't commit murder when their religious beliefs are mocked, period. The fact that somebody made fun, jeered at, or even spread libel and slander about the founder of their faith does not excuse or even mitigate their behavior.
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the primary responsibility for the murders is on the mob.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Apparently, "Sam Bacile" is in fact, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Coptic Christian living in California.

---

Marvellous. As if the Copts don't have enough problems already.

---

Yeah, it kind of problematizes the idea that this video was created with the direct intent of provoking violence. Since Copts in Egypt would be top of the list for any such violent retribution, even if the mob didn't know the producer was Coptic.

---

He worked under an alias, took several steps to obscure his identity and religious background. Appears to me he expected some sort of violence. So, he posed as an Israeli making/releasing a film in America. Doesn't point towards him thinking the Copts would take any retribution.

---

quote:

---

Ultimately, as Balkin explains, it is very difficult to prove incitement, which requires proving that 1) the speech in question intended to cause an illegal violent act, and 2) that the speech did directly cause the illegal violent act at issue. In no way does what either Jones or "Bacile" did qualify as incitement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin explains in The Atlantic why making and screening this film are entirely protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The whole thing about shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does not apply.

quote:

---

Ultimately, as Balkin explains, it is very difficult to prove incitement, which requires proving that 1) the speech in question intended to cause an illegal violent act, and 2) that the speech did directly cause the illegal violent act at issue. In no way does what either Jones or "Bacile" did qualify as incitement.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the offence was the problem, then you would have expected the protests over The Last Temptation of Christ and Jerry Springer, the Opera to have resulted in RPGs and buildings being burned down. So, it ain't the offence that's the issue, but the violence inherent in some of the people taking that offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
While the response of the Muslim on the street was foul and deeply wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I hereby denounce the crimes of Stalin.

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: The point is not whether the film is any good - from what I have seen of it online it is pretty crappy - but that on an occasion such as this, the absolute priority is to assert the principle (whether or not Voltaire actually said it) of "I might not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Legally, they are entitled to make a film whose only goal is to offend. Morally, I think they shouldn't do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: The point is not whether the film is any good - from what I have seen of it online it is pretty crappy - but that on an occasion such as this, the absolute priority is to assert the principle (whether or not Voltaire actually said it) of "I might not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it".

---

I will defend the right of the people who are responsible for it to make this film. They should not be jailed or persecuted because of this. In fact, I don't think they will be, and no-one on this thread is calling for that.

On the other hand, I do think they are complete assholes for having done this, and while the people who perpetrated the violence are guilty of it, I personally also blame the people who are responsible for this film.

I guess there's a difference between legality and morality that's in play here. Legally, they are entitled to make a film whose only goal is to offend. Morally, I think they shouldn't do it.

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: I agree, but that legal right should be defended at all costs, no matter how much some people exploit it.

---

quote:

---

Suppose it emerged that an Islamic extremist had in fact financed the film in order to provoke this incident. In that case I presume you would think that the filmmaker should be partly blamed?(*)

Suppose it emerged that the CIA or Israeli government had financed the film in order to provoke this incident to use as a casus belli(**) against Iran. In that case I presume you would think that the filmmaker should be partly blamed?

---

quote:

---

Suppose the police through negligence or worse kill or beat up someone from a racial minority and then try to cover it up, and this provokes riots. Rioting is wrong, whether in response to police corruption or not. But does holding the police responsible for triggering the riots amount to condoning the rioters or allowing the rioters to control police actions through violence? No, it's not. If the police had been acting properly in arresting a criminal, then they wouldn't responsible for any violence in response. But if they were acting corruptly, then they are in part to blame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the primary responsibility for the murders is on the mob.

None here have argued this. None.

---

quote:

---

He said that the film (which he has heard of but not seen) made him feel very angry, but that such anger, while appropriate, was no excuse for people to behave like animals (his word).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think what this boils down to is not the First Amendment or whatnot. People have the Right to Free Speech, I don't think anyone is arguing that.

The point is about responsibility. If you are making a film which inflames people you are a fool rather than a criminal. And if you are doing it in such a way as to inflame people whilst being protected from the effects of that anger, you are a danger to yourself and other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I'd look at this from a different direction. I would never give support to someones asumed right to be so offended by words that they kill someone.

---

quote:

---

George Spigot: It's still words being seen as justification for murder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:


@ lilBuddha

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
But the primary responsibility for the murders is on the mob.

None here have argued this. None.

---

If you say "Yes the murder was wrong but look at what the nasty people said. The murderers were provoked into doing it". Then you are diminishing their responsibility.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If the offence was the problem, then you would have expected the protests over The Last Temptation of Christ and Jerry Springer, the Opera to have resulted in RPGs and buildings being burned down. So, it ain't the offence that's the issue, but the violence inherent in some of the people taking that offence.

---

As I mentioned and linked to upthread, there was a violent reaction in Paris to TLTOC. A theater was torched; and 13 people were injured--some severely burned.

---

quote:

---

Matt, how are you using "RPGs" here, please? Thx.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Remember we are talking about people reacting to words not people reacting to physical violence. If one murder is reacted to with another murder we can condem both deaths. If words are reacted to with murder...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Remember we are talking about people reacting to words not people reacting to physical violence. If one murder is reacted to with another murder we can condem both deaths. If words are reacted to with murder...

---

The logical principle is the same in both cases.

How far are you prepared to go with this blaming words is justifying murder principle?

Murdering Salman Rushdie for what he said is wrong. Agreed. Is the Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie's murder morally ok, because we can't blame Khomeini's words.

A right-wing politician makes a speech demonising immigrants, disabled people and single mothers. Morally wrong, I hope you agree. Someone murders an immigrant in response. Does the right-wing politician's speech suddenly become morally ok because criticising the speech would be justifying murder on account of the words?

Not a made-up example: every time politicians make speeches about the need to control immigration there is a rise in the number of racist attacks. For that matter, the speeches by the present government about benefit scroungers have been followed by a rise in attacks on people with disabilities. But presumably you think the politicians don't bear any blame at all for that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Murdering Salman Rushdie for what he said is wrong. Agreed. Is the Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie's murder morally ok, because we can't blame Khomeini's words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
To treat the murders as inevitable, and therefore to call for an end to any critical comment on Islam or Islamism, is to back down in the face of the crudest blackmail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The legal right of someone to make a shoddy and gratuitously offensive film about Mahommed is the same legal right which tries (not always, alas, successfully) to protect serious critics of Islamist extremism such as Salman Rushdie, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens, Ayan Hirsi Ali, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, all of whom one can disagree with over details, but none of whom any sane person would want to silence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Murdering Salman Rushdie for what he said is wrong. Agreed. Is the Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Rushdie's murder morally ok, because we can't blame Khomeini's words.

A right-wing politician makes a speech demonising immigrants, disabled people and single mothers. Morally wrong, I hope you agree. Someone murders an immigrant in response. Does the right-wing politician's speech suddenly become morally ok because criticising the speech would be justifying murder on account of the words?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Was Khomeini's position in Iran like that of a journalist or blogger or novellist, with no weapons other than their opinions? Or was it more like the commander of an army or a president or a king?

---

quote:

---

George Spigot: Should group A in any way be culpably for these deaths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
False analogy.

---

quote:

---

They (regrettably, in my opinion) exercised their right to crudely ridicule Mahommed.

---

quote:

---

George Spigot: Should group A in any way be culpably for these deaths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
No.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by me
The real problem is how to deal with the middle east people who intuitively act to perceived offense to their faith with violence; usually directed toward the US.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Group A hold a demonstration where a speech is made condeming the actions of group B as violent, immoral and ungodly.

Group B take offence at this speech and start a riot where several people are killed.

Should group A in any way be culpably for these deaths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Let's look at a different example from that of the OP.

Group A hold a demonstration where a speech is made condeming the actions of group B as violent, immoral and ungodly.

Group B take offence at this speech and start a riot where several people are killed.

Should group A in any way be culpably for these deaths?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
False analogy.

---

It's not any sort of analogy. I was trying to find out how far George Spigot's principle that you can't blame people for the effect of their words extends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I fear a culture where all a group has to do to subdue a type of expression they disagree with is simply to say, "this offends me. I may kill people because of it". And soon you'll have people saying "No no you can't say THAT. You might end up being partly responsible for someones death".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we'd all fear that. But when you say "use words" it has been pointed out upthread that examples of ordering killings, or a Fatwa delivered by the Ayatollah are "using words". So there has to be some sort of limit.

---

quote:

---

George Spigot: Heres where I stand. If we are to call people who use words morally culpable for murder, if we say they should shut up, if in essence we say their words ought to be subdued, then I fear the following.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I fear a culture where all a group has to do to subdue a type of expression they disagree with is simply to say, "this offends me. I may kill people because of it". And soon you'll have people saying "No no you can't say THAT. You might end up being partly responsible for someones death".

---

Repeating the same tired breathless nonsense over and over does not add weight to your argument.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we'd all fear that. But when you say "use words" it has been pointed out upthread that examples of ordering killings, or a Fatwa delivered by the Ayatollah are "using words". So there has to be some sort of limit.

---

That's true as far as it goes but as has already been pointed out the people who made the film were not generals with an army at their command. I'm more than happy to agree that if the head of an army uses words to order the army to kill, then they do have responsibility. In the op's case and in the arguments I'm making though I'm not talking about people issuing orders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
...but as has already been pointed out the people who made the film were not generals with an army at their command.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Then perhaps you'd prefer an analogy with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Would you allow someone to shout "Mohammed was a pedophile!" in a crowded mosque?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we'd all fear that. But when you say "use words" it has been pointed out upthread that examples of ordering killings, or a Fatwa delivered by the Ayatollah are "using words". So there has to be some sort of limit.

---

That's true as far as it goes but as has already been pointed out the people who made the film were not generals with an army at their command. I'm more than happy to agree that if the head of an army uses words to order the army to kill, then they do have responsibility. In the op's case and in the arguments I'm making though I'm not talking about people issuing orders.

---

Then perhaps you'd prefer an analogy with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Would you allow someone to shout "Mohammed was a pedophile!" in a crowded mosque?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
But I would not agree that in every case peopes words can be used to hold them responsible for other peoples actions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Then perhaps you'd prefer an analogy with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Would you allow someone to shout "Mohammed was a pedophile!" in a crowded mosque?

---

Having thought some more I think I agree now with the just words vs shouting fire argument. Not that it relates to the op of course but just in the general sense that you and others have forced me to admit that I now need to make an exception. In this case the exception would be causing panic by lying about a dangerous life threatening event. So yes I'm willing to say you've convinced me on that score. But I would not agree that in every case peopes words can be used to hold them responsible for other peoples actions.

As to the shouting insults in the mosque example. They would have the right to throw that person out and ban them from coming back in. If they made the decision to kill that person? Well such a decision is so far beyond any reasonable expectation for retaliation then no. I don't agree that the person flinging insults would be at all culpable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Being an honestly held opinion is only part of the question. If one walks into a mosque shouting one's honestly held opinion loudly, that implies a motivation beyond simply the need to communicate. One is clearly looking for trouble.

Likewise if one communicates one's opinion by burning korans rather than holding internet discussions, I think we can infer something from that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yes, one can infer intent from conduct in certain circumstances but equally I know of Christian fundies who have burned books simply because they consider them evil rather than through intent to inflame passions in others, so I'm not sure one can infer the latter intention from a fundagelical burning a Koran.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I take RuthW's point that it is very difficult to establish intent in this setting, but say there was credible witness accounts that the individual filming this video had intended to stoke he fires of animosity between two groups (i.e. US vs Muslims) - does that still count as free speech that needs defending?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I find the US approach to free speech to be over the top, and I'll tell you why...

<...blathering about harassment via Twitter...>

...I'm sorry, but your precious free speech and the idea that you should defend anyone's right to say ANYTHING looks pretty bloody stupid in the face of this something like this. I will NOT defend the right of people to say things deliberately calculated to cause as much harm as possible. I will NOT defend the right of people to say things with a view to causing death and destructions while escaping consequences for having done so. Free speech does NOT mean the kind of free for all where people can hide behind the fact that all they did was utter words. IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR DELIBERATELY EVIL ACTS. AND SPEAKING IS AN ACT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I don't know how you counter that. But making it clear to idiots that making and publicising films of this nature are very likely to have violent reactions must surely be a start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Actually any sane person ought to want to silence at least two of those (and arguably three or four) because they are nasty authoritarian far-right racist lying bigots. But luckily for free speech us sane people don't get to silence them. Even bad people get to say bad things. Free speech has to include the freedom to tell evil lies or its not really free speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems rather that it should be made clear that such violent reactions will be met with zero tolerance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I take RuthW's point that it is very difficult to establish intent in this setting, but say there was credible witness accounts that the individual filming this video had intended to stoke he fires of animosity between two groups (i.e. US vs Muslims) - does that still count as free speech that needs defending?

---

In the U.S., this Supreme Court ruling (combined with the subsequent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court) imparts that it is indeed free speech, even if it offends, even if it is calculated to cause animosity:

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I find the US approach to free speech to be over the top, and I'll tell you why...

<...blathering about harassment via Twitter...>

...I'm sorry, but your precious free speech and the idea that you should defend anyone's right to say ANYTHING looks pretty bloody stupid in the face of this something like this. I will NOT defend the right of people to say things deliberately calculated to cause as much harm as possible. I will NOT defend the right of people to say things with a view to causing death and destructions while escaping consequences for having done so. Free speech does NOT mean the kind of free for all where people can hide behind the fact that all they did was utter words. IT IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR DELIBERATELY EVIL ACTS. AND SPEAKING IS AN ACT.

---

Sure, speaking is an act. An act, as it turns out, that doesn't kill anyone - unlike the burning of a consulate with people inside.

The issue here isn't the film, as obnoxious as it may or may not be. (I haven't seen it, and don't intend to, frankly.) The issue is the batshit ridiculous notion that, if someone is offended by the film, and makes the free choice to engage in violence to show their offense, that the person who made the film is somehow culpable FOR THE FREE CHOICES MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

If I call you a vile series of four-letter words, question your parentage, excoriate your sexual/political/whatever orientation, does that somehow give you the right to physically attack me? Does it make me culpable for you having chosen to attack me? I'd argue a resounding NO on both counts. Offense != violence. Full stop. If you're offended, feel free to engage in debate/argument/what-have-you. That's appropriate, and the moral thing to do. Killing people isn't- and the responsibility falls solely on those that do the killing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The problem is a mistaken belief by some that what they hold by faith holds some sort of authority over everyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
What about it makes it regrettable? Is 'regrettable' here a euphemism for morally wrong or ill-advised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems rather that it should be made clear that such violent reactions will be met with zero tolerance.

---

Interested to know how you're planning to do that without resorting to even more destructive forms of violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The problem is a mistaken belief by some that what they hold by faith holds some sort of authority over everyone else.

---

Is there anyone who does not believe that of at least some subset of their beliefs?

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The first part of the plan is to head out right now to the pub down the street for lunch and some Guinness and/or Smithwick's. The rest of the plan is still being put together.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The first part of the plan is to head out right now to the pub down the street for lunch and some Guinness and/or Smithwick's. The rest of the plan is still being put together.

---

That could be tricky for those who don't like Guinness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
How much of a body count did "Piss Christ" run up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
The issue is the batshit ridiculous notion that, if someone is offended by the film, and makes the free choice to engage in violence to show their offense, that the person who made the film is somehow culpable FOR THE FREE CHOICES MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
If I call you a vile series of four-letter words, question your parentage, excoriate your sexual/political/whatever orientation, does that somehow give you the right to physically attack me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Start a new thread, and I'll tell you what I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
If I was feeling suicidal, I wouldn't read it nor would I advise anyone else to that was feeling suicidal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What we have here is less like yelling Fire in a crowded room than pouring gasoline on a fire. But a fire 10,000 miles away -- knowing full well you are putting other people at risk of being burned, and not yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think twitter rarely helps those in the public eye. It is so easy for people to write crap and the temptation to say things you don't really mean (or you wouldn't normally say) is too great.

If I was on TV, there is no way I'd tweet. If I was feeling suicidal, I wouldn't read it nor would I advise anyone else to that was feeling suicidal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So you say now. People who are suicidal aren't necessarily making rational decisions about things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

I do not. I don't think they are legally culpable under our laws. But I do believe them to be morally culpable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What makes you think she was suicidal before people started making her life hell on Twitter?

---

quote:

---

And please do NOT start on the "she should get off Twitter" line, in any way shape or form. Kid getting bullied at school? Send the kid to another school. Life being made miserable at work? Get another job.

---

quote:

---

It is not the responsibility of the victim of bullying to hand over the field to the bully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

I do not. I don't think they are legally culpable under our laws. But I do believe them to be morally culpable.

---

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
If I call you a vile series of four-letter words, question your parentage, excoriate your sexual/political/whatever orientation, does that somehow give you the right to physically attack me?
Nobody has said anything of the sort. Why does this keep being brought up? It is a red herring of the first order. It's beginning to look like a passive-aggressive wind-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
Well, practically speaking there isn't any alternative. If twitter is making you feel suicidal, stop reading the shit. What else can you do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It is not the responsibility of the victim of bullying to hand over the field to the bully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So what exactly do you think they are morally culpable of if not causing a physical attack through insults?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

---

Yes, but it wouldn't apply here, because nothing the movie-makers did directly endangered others. What they did offended others, and those people did the actual harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

---

Yes, but it wouldn't apply here, because nothing the movie-makers did directly endangered others. What they did offended others, and those people did the actual harm.

---

If I let a tiger out of its cage after poking it with a big stick, and the tiger kills you, I get off then?

Or does it only apply because you can hold human beings to a level of responsibility?

There's a big, big difference between saying the people who did the actual harm should be held responsible, and saying that BECAUSE they are responsible, that somehow means I can't ALSO be responsible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Because making a movie is comparable to placing somebody in actual physical danger. What a ridiculous analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Because making a movie is comparable to placing somebody in actual physical danger. What a ridiculous analogy.

---

Making a movie that can be easily predicted to stir up violence somewhere you're not, yes that is comparable. You're obfuscating when you call it merely "making a movie."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Because making a movie is comparable to placing somebody in actual physical danger. What a ridiculous analogy.

---

Making a movie that can be easily predicted to stir up violence somewhere you're not, yes that is comparable. You're obfuscating when you call it merely "making a movie."

---

No it's not comparable because the filmmakers did not open a tiger cage/murder anyone. The people offended by the movie, (in the case of the op pretended to be offended by the movie) opened the tiger cage/murdered people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Making a movie that can be easily predicted to stir up violence somewhere you're not, yes that is comparable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
It seems to me that you're confusing my argument that the speakers are morally wrong with an argument that the responders are morally right.

It's not an either/or proposition, frankly. It's not a case of going either it's person A's fault or it's person B's. I'm perfectly happy with an answer that is "a pox on BOTH your houses".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
The issue is the batshit ridiculous notion that, if someone is offended by the film, and makes the free choice to engage in violence to show their offense, that the person who made the film is somehow culpable FOR THE FREE CHOICES MADE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

---

To ascertain just how far you'd take this principle: Do you think a person who hires a hit-man should not be held accountable, because the hit-man made a free choice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
If I call you a vile series of four-letter words, question your parentage, excoriate your sexual/political/whatever orientation, does that somehow give you the right to physically attack me?

---

Nobody has said anything of the sort. Why does this keep being brought up? It is a red herring of the first order. It's beginning to look like a passive-aggressive wind-up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

Personally I'd probably be happy with them just being sued by the family of the Libyan ambassador for a fairly large sum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

---

Yes, but it wouldn't apply here, because nothing the movie-makers did directly endangered others. What they did offended others, and those people did the actual harm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
So while you are all pontificating about it all please spare a thought or prayer for those of us living in the region and dealing directly with the fallout.

---

Point taken.
 

---

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Then perhaps you'd prefer an analogy with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Would you allow someone to shout "Mohammed was a pedophile!" in a crowded mosque?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
They did something the knew would stir up violence. Why are you incapable of admitting this? Do you really think they were so ignorant as to not know this?

---

quote:

---

Nobody is saying they murdered anybody, so can we please drop this passive-aggressive canard?

---

quote:

---

Why will you not answer the points I have raised? Must I assume it is because you cannot?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
It's just an excuse for an extremist minority (and they are a minority here, most Tunisians don't want this) to indulge in thuggery and violence.

---

quote:

---

So while you are all pontificating about it all please spare a thought or prayer for those of us living in the region and dealing directly with the fallout.

---

But I won't apologize for pontificating. I'm grateful to be living in a free country where it's my Constitutional right to do so.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@jbohn

quote:

---

If the test of free speech is "won't offend anyone who could be violent", we don't have speech at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Given that there is a history of rioting after the LA Lakers win the NBA championship, is the basketball team responsible for the rioting? Should they cover the damages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The number of "fire in a theater" comments I have read (elsewhere) make me wonder how close we are to that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Should the Egyptian religious channel [et al.] that aired the trailer and thus sparked the first protests also be blamed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Should the Egyptian religious channel that aired the trailer and thus sparked the first protests also be blamed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
@jbohn

quote:

---

If the test of free speech is "won't offend anyone who could be violent", we don't have speech at all.

---

Very well said.

---

quote:

---

You know, I'd be darned interested to know what some of you think about the suicide attempt of the Australian TV presenter I alluded to earlier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
To reiterate for the nth time:

Nobody is trying to absolve the murderers of responsibility for their crimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Given that there is a history of rioting after the LA Lakers win the NBA championship, is the basketball team responsible for the rioting? Should they cover the damages?

---

It seems some people are completely incapable of seeing the point that I, and people who agree with me, are making. Or unwilling, perhaps. Did the Lakers really win the championship for the express purpose of stirring up anger? I don't think so. This is a fucking stupid analogy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
To reiterate for the nth time:

Nobody is trying to absolve the murderers of responsibility for their crimes.

---

I think you may have hit the nub of our dispute here. When you say that someone who made a movie shares responsibility for their crimes it sounds like you are saying they were not completly responsible for those crimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
A command given to a soldier or an employee or any other obedient follower is in a sense a sort of action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:
We're in a rinse and repeat cycle. The ones being played are us, thinking that we can bomb and buy our way in to making friends and bringing stability to the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
I fear a culture where all a group has to do to subdue a type of expression they disagree with is simply to say, "this offends me. I may kill people because of it". And soon you'll have people saying "No no you can't say THAT. You might end up being partly responsible for someones death".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
Given that there is a history of rioting after the LA Lakers win the NBA championship, is the basketball team responsible for the rioting? Should they cover the damages?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Orfeo wrote:

quote:

---

You know, I'd be darned interested to know what some of you think about the suicide attempt of the Australian TV presenter I alluded to earlier.

---

Not a lot of sympathy. She was already a celebrity to begin with. No one becomes a TV presenter unless they WANT to be well-known and talked about. Having done everything in her power to become well-known and talked about, she should have been prepared for the possibility that she would get onto the radar of people who are gonna be inclined to hate her guts, and be happy to tell her so.

The stuff I saw at your news.com link is pretty par for the course for Ship Of Fools' own Hell forum. Maybe a bit edgier, with the "stick your head in a toaster" business, but then, factor in that most Shipmates are not people who have gone out of their way to become the topic of nationwide conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
People who work in radio & TV are not toys for spoilt toddlers to see if they can break them for fun - thank you very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
This is a slippery slope argument. It's a paradigmatic example of a slippery slope argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

Folks who insist that no-one but the people throwing rocks at an embassy bear any culpability in this episode seem to have a pretty pinched notion of moral responsibility. There is no incompatibilty between free speech and a well-developed sense of restraint. The notion that failing to be a flaming asshole is somehow failing to be a champion of democracy is idiotic in the extreme.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

As I read Spigot's argument(and he can correct me if I'm wrong), he's saying that if people argue that we should censor ourselves so as to avoid provoking violent retaliation from one group of extremists, there's no logical reason why we shouldn't practice a similar censorship whenever ANY group threatens to get angry over something that is said.

---

quote:

---

I've presented TV. It was a long time ago. I was young. It was fun, exciting and a wonderful chance to communicate a subject l adored. To say that by doing that I was basically 'asking for it' if people personally messaged me & told me to kill myself is vile stuff. People who work in radio & TV are not toys for spoilt toddlers to see if they can break them for fun - thank you very much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
If we are to regulate (as some Shipmates have suggested) speech simply because it *may* offend someone who *may* get violent, where does that leave us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
If we are to regulate (as some Shipmates have suggested) speech simply because it *may* offend someone who *may* get violent, where does that leave us?

---

Which shipmate suggested that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

Personally I'd probably be happy with them just being sued by the family of the Libyan ambassador for a fairly large sum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Sure sounds like he's advocating both a) criminal sanction, and b) civil liability - both of which fall under regulating in my book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
Sure sounds like he's advocating both a) criminal sanction, and b) civil liability - both of which fall under regulating in my book.

---

Agreed, but the "simply because it *may* offend someone who *may* get violent" is not quite what he said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
There's a middle ground between people having a hide like a rhino or skin like an eggshell. You can't assume either. But to decide the first is always true & everyone everywhere should be able to cope with vile abuse for doing their job, is as daft as saying no one should ever be criticised in case they top themselves. There are plenty good people in TV who are not hard cases. Callous bullying is not justified because someone has been known to explain stuff while standing in front of a camera.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
we can't prohibit what has been done, only what someone might do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That the people who made this movie are immoral assholes is pretty clear. What you want done about them isn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

quote:

---

A fashion reality show would be my idea of hell but tweeting to the presenter to go kill herself? Really?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That the people who made this movie are immoral assholes is pretty clear. What you want done about them isn't.

---

Just out of curiosity, what did I say I wanted done about them? Maybe you can point me to a post I forgot I made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
That the people who made this movie are immoral assholes is pretty clear. What you want done about them isn't.

---

Just out of curiosity, what did I say I wanted done about them? Maybe you can point me to a post I forgot I made.

---

quote:

---

Louise: No, I don't tweet. It sounds like it's more comparable to having strangers call you up at all hours saying hateful things than what I was imagining.

---

quote:

---

If you think a TV programme is unethical then formally complain, but don't twitter troll or justify twitter trolls or you risk becoming part of what you deplore .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I must say I find, in the face of these murders, the likes of George Spigot putting themselves forward as advocates of free speech, in the case of a film made to vilify, somewhat off putting.

I think it is not a matter of free speech but people like Sam Bacile pulling their heads in and not providing Al Quaida with a supposed excuse for their murderous acts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

I'm reminded of the propaganda that poured out of radios during the Kenyan election violence, and also before the Rwandan genocide. Continuous streams of hatred, designed to fuel violence and killing. I can't find it in me to argue freedom of speech over that either. Can you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Given the people on this site calling for Pussy Riot to be jailed, are we really surprised at the riots about this provocative film?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Making a movie that can be easily predicted to stir up violence somewhere you're not, yes that is comparable.

---

For there to be a legal issue, the connection between the movie and the violence needs to be a lot more direct than "stir up" and "somewhere."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Then perhaps you'd prefer an analogy with shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Would you allow someone to shout "Mohammed was a pedophile!" in a crowded mosque?

---

No (which is more or less why I'm not inclined to give Pussy Riot a pass, by the way). But they didn't show their film in a crowded mosque. They put it out in ways perfectly normal in the West, where they live.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
To reiterate for the nth time:

Nobody is trying to absolve the murderers of responsibility for their crimes.

---

I think you may have hit the nub of our dispute here. When you say that someone who made a movie shares responsibility for their crimes it sounds like you are saying they were not completly responsible for those crimes.

---

I wonder how many times we have to say that's not what we mean before y'all get it? Responsibility is not a zero-sum game. If I pay you to shoot somebody, that doesn't absolve you in the least of your guilt in shooting that person. This is so obvious as to be obvious.

And don't say "they didn't pay anybody to shoot anybody" because that is not the point you're arguing here. You are saying that claiming that person X bears some responsibility for the actions of person Y somehow lessens person Y's responsibility. If that general principle is true, then hit-men are less responsible for their murders than people who murder for their own motivations. You can't have it both ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
Not a lot of sympathy. She was already a celebrity to begin with. No one becomes a TV presenter unless they WANT to be well-known and talked about. Having done everything in her power to become well-known and talked about, she should have been prepared for the possibility that she would get onto the radar of people who are gonna be inclined to hate her guts, and be happy to tell her so.

---

quote:

---

Yes, yes. And a woman who was wearing a slinky red dress really should have been prepared for the unwelcome attention she got from the sleazeballs at the bar who tried to rape her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
I missed the part where someone tried to rape, or otherwise physically assault, Ms. Dawson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
For example, shouting to an enraged mob of Klansmen, "lets go hang those n-----s!" while pointing at a group of people is incitement. Addressing the same crowd with, "I think n-----s should be hung", while distasteful (to put it mildly) is not.

---

quote:

---

474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person uses a carriage service; and

(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
In the U.S., such speech could be illegal- IF it is directly inciting imminent violence. For example, shouting to an enraged mob of Klansmen, "lets go hang those n-----s!" while pointing at a group of people is incitement. Addressing the same crowd with, "I think n-----s should be hung", while distasteful (to put it mildly) is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
The National Secular Society are out for their annual stroll in London today. How serendipitous for them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
The National Secular Society are out for their annual stroll in London today. How serendipitous for them.

---

I don't know anything about these guys but their what we stand for list seems reasonable. And you must admit that while the world wouldn't be all sweetness and unicorns if it were secular, it would take away the excuse that caused this mess in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by passer:
The National Secular Society are out for their annual stroll in London today. How serendipitous for them.

---

I don't know anything about these guys but their what we stand for list seems reasonable. And you must admit that while the world wouldn't be all sweetness and unicorns if it were secular, it would take away the excuse that caused this mess in the first place.

---

This is an argument for another thread, but if you think the general level of violence, hatred, bigotry, etc., would lower significantly in the absence of religion you fail to understand human nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I read your entire post, it is not necessary to repeat. Your reply fails to address my post. I will put it more simply:
Remove religion and another excuse will be found for the same behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that this particular crowd of crazies always seem likely to be inflamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I read your entire post, it is not necessary to repeat. Your reply fails to address my post. I will put it more simply:
Remove religion and another excuse will be found for the same behaviour.

---

Yes. It would remove that particulier excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
In the U.S., such speech could be illegal- IF it is directly inciting imminent violence. For example, shouting to an enraged mob of Klansmen, "lets go hang those n-----s!" while pointing at a group of people is incitement. Addressing the same crowd with, "I think n-----s should be hung", while distasteful (to put it mildly) is not.

---

You see, if the latter is said to a likely-to-be-inflamed crowd who look poised to act on it, and there really is a group of niggers in town who are at risk of getting hanged, then I think I would begin to apply the incitement label to the latter example as well. If on the other hand it was said in a quiet conversation with an equally distasteful friend, then I would agree with the distasteful-but-not-incitement label.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Before the Rwandan genocide radio stations pumped out non-stop propaganda about the Tutsi "cockroaches" that needed exterminating. Others were stock piling weapons at the same time. When the touch paper was lit in the form of a presidential assassination, the plans came to fruition and thus began one of the worst genocides seen in Africa.

The radio propaganda was a key part of it that enabled the genocide and mobilised the population.

I found that challenged my views on the protection of free speech as an absolute.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I read your entire post, it is not necessary to repeat. Your reply fails to address my post. I will put it more simply:
Remove religion and another excuse will be found for the same behaviour.

---

Yes. It would remove that particulier excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

474.17 Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person uses a carriage service; and

(b) the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

---

Nothing in there says that TV presenters are owed a lesser standard.

As there is nothing specific in there about the level of intent required, the usual standards would apply, which is intent when it comes to conduct, and recklessness when it comes to causing a result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
If evil people have even just one less excuse to do evil that can only be a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
We should never let bully's dictate what we can or can't do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
No it's not comparable because the filmmakers did not open a tiger cage/murder anyone. The people offended by the movie, (in the case of the op pretended to be offended by the movie) opened the tiger cage/murdered people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So is it a good thing not to stir up hornet's nests (even if it's not our fault that somebody else 10,000 miles away gets stung to death), or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
a balance has to be struck- it's just a matter of hashing out where to put it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
If evil people have even just one less excuse to do evil that can only be a good thing.

---

Fascinating you should say this when you also said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
We should never let bully's dictate what we can or can't do.

---

and

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
No it's not comparable because the filmmakers did not open a tiger cage/murder anyone. The people offended by the movie, (in the case of the op pretended to be offended by the movie) opened the tiger cage/murdered people.

---

So is it a good thing not to stir up hornet's nests (even if it's not our fault that somebody else 10,000 miles away gets stung to death), or not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
No, it's not - at all. But that doesn't make the hornets any less crazy.

To kill random American people because you were angered by a film, however terrible and wrong headed the film, is horrendously evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
The behavior of fatwah-mongers has already set ample precedent in dictating the terms of the discussion (if any), and we're letting them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
As I read Spigot's argument(and he can correct me if I'm wrong), he's saying that if people argue that we should censor ourselves so as to avoid provoking violent retaliation from one group of extremists, there's no logical reason why we shouldn't practice a similar censorship whenever ANY group threatens to get angry over something that is said.

---

quote:

---

I don't recall reports of riots provoked by Christopher Hitchens' efforts at criticism of religion, let alone Dawkins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mere Nick. So that's how we're to love our enemies ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mousethief ... what's happening to me ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
We have insufficient information for making those kind of analogies as we don't know how the film came to be translated into Arabic & brought to the attention of Egyptian conservative media opinion formers. So we don't know how far the originators went in promoting their project. Did the key Egyptian players go trawling YouTube for something to be offended about or did Abdelmasih, Nakoula et al do the translation & then send links to selected influential persons likely to go nuts about it? Without knowing we can't judge the extent of passive versus active provocation, looking for offence versus giving offence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Sir Pellinore. In real politik AKA the Corleone Rules there are no real friends. As Mubarak, Gaddaffi et al discovered. WE - the consumerist West - will ALWAYS 'betray' our 'friends'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Information about what's in the cybersphere travels fast, media watchers are fluent in English and everybody who is anybody gets a newsfeed. "Americans blaspheme Muhammed in film"! probably took no more than 12 hours to get round the world. I wasn't surprised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
You raise a valid counterpoint about the Belfast marches. Off the top of my head, I'm tempted to say that geographic proximity to the potential rioting puts the Orangemen into a somewhat different ethical category than someone halfway around the world would be. Basically, the marchers know full well that the people who could be provoked are standing right there in front of them, and have seen those people so provoked numerous times in the past.

---

quote:

---

It was reasonable for the area's Jewish inhabitants to oppose the march because it was being forced on them in their homes, but it would not have been reasonable for Jews at the time to have gone out and killed people at random because Mein Kampf was being sold in London bookshops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

It was reasonable for the area's Jewish inhabitants to oppose the march because it was being forced on them in their homes, but it would not have been reasonable for Jews at the time to have gone out and killed people at random because Mein Kampf was being sold in London bookshops.

---

Okay. But would you say that if the Jews did riot over the sale of Mein Kampf, that the London bookstores would be obligated to stop selling it?

---

quote:

---

How Grigis’(sic) short item spread is a reminder of how interconnected the world has become

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So according to this version of the story this film was made by Egyptians living in America, who tried as hard as they could to get it into the Egyptian media on September 11th, all the while pretending to be Jews?

If true that is getting very near deliberate incitement to violence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So according to this version of the story this film was made by Egyptians living in America, who tried as hard as they could to get it into the Egyptian media on September 11th, all the while pretending to be Jews?

If true that is getting very near deliberate incitement to violence.

---

Or perhaps giving an excuse to start a demonstration which you can turn to violence. There are just so many oddities about this, almost anything is possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
So according to this version of the story this film was made by Egyptians living in America, who tried as hard as they could to get it into the Egyptian media on September 11th, all the while pretending to be Jews?

If true that is getting very near deliberate incitement to violence.

---

Or perhaps giving an excuse to start a demonstration which you can turn to violence. There are just so many oddities about this, almost anything is possible.

---

Here's the plot for a political conspiracy movie:

Perhaps this was all cooked up by a certain political candidate, let's call him, oh I dunno, Rhett Mammony, to embarrass his incumbent opponent in an upcoming election? You know, the old October Surprise thing.

(And while I'm not for a second suggesting that's anywhere near being true, I'd bet my bottom dollar that you could find some links between Nakoula Basseley Nakoula's church and the party fronted by "Rhett Mammony". Probably pretty tenuous ones, but substantial enough by the usual standards of conspiracy-theorists.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I wish I'd thought of that, Stetson.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

But I completely agree, we have a balance to strike between chilling effects on free speech and political democracy and allowing incitements to violence on the other hand.

That position, of needing to strike a balance, seems to me a very different argument than the polarised one where one group is seen as advocating censorship and tyranny on the grounds of a right to not be offended, versus another group standing up for truth, justice and freedom of speech.

It is a rather more pragmatic and real-world argument that is needed rather than an abstract one of principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I feel it is possible to draw a line that depends upon the value of what is censored. Pussy Riot - legitimate criticism of the Russian government. Film depicting Mohammed as a child rapist - doing nobody any good whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Let's try yet another analogy.
About twenty years ago, the Ulster Unionist Orange Lodges in Northern Ireland used to march yearly through Nationalist communities with bands and banners claiming that they were exercising their right to walk the Queen's highway. Similarly, the English Defence League has taken to trying to organise marches through areas with lots of (often Muslim) immigrant or minority communities. A lot of people argue that these marches have the effect of intimidating the residents of the areas marched through, which is a form of offence, and there is a public order reason for banning them completely. (And some Orange Order marches have been banned from marching through the Nationalist areas.)

It seems to me that the arguments put forward for not blaming the filmmakers (and for not blaming Islamic media that publicised the film) would apply equally to not blaming the marchers for any violence that occurs as a result of their march. And that would mean that the marches ought not to be rerouted. Do people accept that equivalence and if not why not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

I don't recall reports of riots provoked by Christopher Hitchens' efforts at criticism of religion, let alone Dawkins.

---

No, but there was violence provoked by Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. And while I have not read the book, everything I've heard about it would seem to indicate that it is something closer to the calibre and purpose of Hitchens and Dawkins, rather than our SoCal Coptic auteur.

---

quote:

---

So, it is suggested that everyone refrain from getting too caustic about Irish nationalists while speaking in Hyde Park, because you never know who's gonna be secretly filming the speech.

Legitimate request?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I feel it is possible to draw a line that depends upon the value of what is censored. Pussy Riot - legitimate criticism of the Russian government. Film depicting Mohammed as a child rapist - doing nobody any good whatsoever.

---

The value of free speech is not predicated on the supposed "value" of the particular speech. Who would decide what speech is "valuable", and which is not? The persons/institutions being criticized?

---

quote:

---

Here again- unless the marchers are themselves committing the violence, they're not responsible for it; the persons actually committing the violence hold full responsibility. What folks seem to miss here is the lack of an actual, real, causal link- just because someone's views offend me, does NOT give me the right to commit violence upon them, nor does it cause them to be responsible for violence I may commit using their views as an excuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[Are you saying that I don't have the right to say 'the filmmaker is a miserable piece of work who is responsible for those deaths?'
If free speech gives me the right to say the filmmaker's film was worthlesss, then it certainly gives me the right to decide whether the filmmaker's film was worthless. The same goes for you, George Spigot, mousethief, and anybody else who posts on these boards. It's a bit inconsistent, isn't it, to say that we may say what we like so long as we don't criticise what other people say?

Free speech is a legal principle. What I am talking about is the moral responsibility. As I said in an earlier post, malicious gossip is legally protected but is still immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If a gang of twenty people get together and murder one person, are they each only responsible for one twentieth of the murder?
We've argued against this assumption repeatedly, and yet it keeps coming back up without any attempt to rebut the argument against it. Culpability isn't a zero-sum game. Just because one person is fully responsible for something doesn't mean nobody else is also responsible.
Othello is a wife-murderer. He is fully responsible for that. Murdering Desdemona is wrong. But that doesn't mean Iago is innocent.
If someone is 'only following orders' they are culpable for what they did. But the person who gave the orders is culpable too. The same goes for any other speech act by which one person may attempt to manipulate another person into doing performing some action.

Just because I believe people have free will doesn't mean that my actions don't affect other people's actions. If I ask someone to pass the salt a belief in free will doesn't mean I can't have reasonable confidence that they'll pass the salt. And it would be weird to say that they passed the salt but not because I asked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The problem is not intelligent Muslims nor Islam but enraged, ignorant, manipulated fanatics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This whole "Oh, we mustn't let the potential behaviour of others stop us from doing what we want" business...


...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The law doesn't require me to lock my door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The problem is not intelligent Muslims nor Islam but enraged, ignorant, manipulated fanatics.

---

Fanaticism runs across the intellectual spectrum. Does no good to simplify or demonize. lack of understand the mechanisms has done nothing to minimize or diffuse tensions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This whole "Oh, we mustn't let the potential behaviour of others stop us from doing what we want" business...


...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

Yes I lock my door. More to the point I don't feel pressured into not talking about or writing about door locks in public.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This whole "Oh, we mustn't let the potential behaviour of others stop us from doing what we want" business...


...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

Yes I lock my door. More to the point I don't feel pressured into not talking about or writing about door locks in public.

---

Analogy fail. Unless you're feeling pressured not to talk about talking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This whole "Oh, we mustn't let the potential behaviour of others stop us from doing what we want" business...


...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

Yes I lock my door. More to the point I don't feel pressured into not talking about or writing about door locks in public.

---

Analogy fail. Unless you're feeling pressured not to talk about talking.

---

Well if you will insist on using analogies that dont pertain to the point of the thread...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
This whole "Oh, we mustn't let the potential behaviour of others stop us from doing what we want" business...


...tell me, people, do you lock your doors? If so, why? Doesn't it just unnecessarily slow you down when you're looking to enter or exit your property?

---

Yes I lock my door. More to the point I don't feel pressured into not talking about or writing about door locks in public.

---

Analogy fail. Unless you're feeling pressured not to talk about talking.

---

Well if you will insist on using analogies that dont pertain to the point of the thread...

---

No. His analogy made perfect sense. If "we mustn't let the potential behavior of others stop us from doing what we want" then we wouldn't HAVE locks -- the point of locks is to guard against the potential behavior of others.

No, his analogy has everything to do with the point of the thread. Your false reading of it was FAIL.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Saying not doing.

Not going on a march down someones street.

Not walking into someones home or place of worship and shouting.

Making a film that people have the free choice to watch or not as they wish.

Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Saying not doing.

Not going on a march down someones street.

Not walking into someones home or place of worship and shouting.

Making a film that people have the free choice to watch or not as they wish.

Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?

---

Because once you start thinking about the distinction it's really not obvious that it's a valid distinction at all. Saying just is a type of doing. And it's not at all obvious that saying is a special case to which special considerations apply.

Look at your list: shouting in a mosque is a type of saying. Marching down a street is a lot more like saying than it is like physical violence.

---

quote:

---

There is a long tradition of people using mockery to attack despots. It would be a sad day indeed if that tradition were to die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Look at your list: shouting in a mosque is a type of saying. Marching down a street is a lot more like saying than it is like physical violence.

---

If the film makers had held people in a mosque hostage and forced them to watch the movie, if they had marched through the streets with portable wide screen TV's blaring out the movie then maybe your point would be valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
The law doesn't require me to lock my door.

---

Yes, but I'd bet your insurance company does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

I read an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post purporting to answer the question, "Why is the Arab world so easily offended?"

---

quote:

---

jbohn wrote:
I, generally, hold the view that adult humans are capable of making their own decisions- and taking full responsibility for the results of those decisions.

---

quote:

---

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard replied:
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Saying just is a type of doing. And it's not at all obvious that saying is a special case to which special considerations apply.

Look at your list: shouting in a mosque is a type of saying. Marching down a street is a lot more like saying than it is like physical violence.

---

If the film makers had held people in a mosque hostage and forced them to watch the movie, if they had marched through the streets with portable wide screen TV's blaring out the movie then maybe your point would be valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I read an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post purporting to answer the question, "Why is the Arab world so easily offended?"

---

quote:

---

On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater while it was showing [The Last Temptation of Christ]. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned. The Saint Michel theater was heavily damaged, and reopened 3 years later after restoration. Following the attack, a representative of the film's distributor, United International Pictures, said, "The opponents of the film have largely won. They have massacred the film's success, and they have scared the public."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
I read an interesting opinion piece in the Washington Post purporting to answer the question, "Why is the Arab world so easily offended?"

---

Looks like the latest in the ongoing series "Why can't these primitive infidels act more like us?" After all, sensible Western Christians would never get that upset over a mere film.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's nice dear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I'll assume you're attempting to be sarcastic. Sod off, there's a nice boy.

---

It's good to see that you did not let his actions control yours.

--Tom Clune
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I'll assume you're attempting to be sarcastic. Sod off, there's a nice boy.

---

It's good to see that you did not let his actions control yours.

--Tom Clune

---

Indeed- I chose to respond, and I take full responsibility for doing so. Just as I am doing now.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Bravo! Hear hear! Splendid. Ticketty boo. And no, there is no alternative. As being that lost, I wouldn't start from there: "I, generally, hold the view that adult humans are capable of making their own decisions- and taking full responsibility for the results of those decisions."

[ 17. September 2012, 21:09: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
As regards the violence against The Last Temptation Of Christ, the fact that Western Christians can also react inappropriately to material which they don’t like, but are not being forced to watch, doesn’t alter the basic principle, which is not absolute freedom of expression ( I don’t think anyone has demanded that) but a vigilantly defended maximal freedom of expression, in which restrictions are kept as few as possible, and must be rigorously argued for.

Some of the comment on this thread has made me think of so-called “battered wife syndrome”, in which a woman is not only terrified into virtual silence by a man’s unpredictable and irrational violence, but becomes convinced that anything she suffers for opening her mouth must be necessarily her own fault.

I’d rather no-one gratuitously offended Muslims, but the freedom for this idiot to make his pathetic film is the price we pay for an open society in which we are not constantly tiptoeing around panicking about whom we might offend.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I'll assume you're attempting to be sarcastic. Sod off, there's a nice boy.

---

It's good to see that you did not let his actions control yours.

--Tom Clune

---

Careful tclune. There are people in this world who would take great offence at the comments you are making. Anger them any more and they are bound to start a riot. Now I appreciate you don't intend to cause trouble so this is just a friendly warning so you know not to post on this topic again. That is unless you don't mind being culpable in which case go right ahead.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 


It seems some of you really can't grasp the difference between intended consequences, readily predictable consequences, and possible/incidental consequences.

One of the possible consequences of me writing this message is that some Shipmate somewhere will find that their monitor breathes its last, with these few extra pixels being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If you can't tell the difference between THAT impact and me secreting a virus that downloads onto your computer and wrecks the graphics driver, you need serious help.

Judging from that last post, George needs help.

[ 18. September 2012, 07:30: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
"A Letter from a Scared Actress", on Neil Gaiman's blog. I have no idea how true it is, though I am inclined to believe Neil. This whole thing gets weirder and weirder.

[ 18. September 2012, 09:52: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
"A Letter from a Scared Actress", on Neil Gaiman's blog. I have no idea how true it is, though I am inclined to believe Neil. This whole thing gets weirder and weirder.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the possible consequences of me writing this message is that some Shipmate somewhere will find that their monitor breathes its last, with these few extra pixels being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If you can't tell the difference between THAT impact and me secreting a virus that downloads onto your computer and wrecks the graphics driver, you need serious help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the possible consequences of me writing this message is that some Shipmate somewhere will find that their monitor breathes its last, with these few extra pixels being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If you can't tell the difference between THAT impact and me secreting a virus that downloads onto your computer and wrecks the graphics driver, you need serious help.

---

Thank you. Someone FINALY understands the difference I've been trying to explain for what seems like forever.

Indeed SAYING (writing your message) is very different from DOING: (secreting a virus that downloads onto someones computer and causing actual property damage). That's a pretty good example actualy.

---

Let's try this again, shall we...

Okay, this time... my God, I can't believe I'm having to do this...

Scenario 1: I come and use your computer. It so happens I'm the person who's using it at the time that the machine packs it in. It was old and bound to happen, but it happened while I was using some seriously memory-intensive graphic design software that I asked you if I could use.

Scenario 2: I come and use your computer, and plant a virus on it because I hate your guts and consider you too stupid to live.


There ya go. Two DOING scenarios. Are we happy now? CAN WE SEE THE ACTUAL POINT YET?!??
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Frankly, the fact that US law has apparently developed in such a way that you can describe hiring actors and turning on a camera to film them as SAYING rather than DOING is one of the many bizarre notions doing the rounds here. But hey, whatever keeps you warm at night.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Frankly, the fact that US law has apparently developed in such a way that you can describe hiring actors and turning on a camera to film them as SAYING rather than DOING is one of the many bizarre notions doing the rounds here. But hey, whatever keeps you warm at night.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Third, the free speech point isn't about making the film, that is a quite separate matter. Its about what you do with it afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Second, no-one is saying that cheating the actors is free speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in times of war, and other emergencies, the West has few scruples about censorship. In WWII, I think it was widespread.

But here we have a split scenario, as the US is not in an emergency, so there is no requirement to abrogate free speech.

However, the Middle East is obviously a tinderbox right now, in the middle of revolutions and civil wars, possibly.

So it is quite easy for somebody in the West to be provocative, and fuck the consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But in times of war, and other emergencies, the West has few scruples about censorship. In WWII, I think it was widespread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But here we have a split scenario, as the US is not in an emergency, so there is no requirement to abrogate free speech.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, the Middle East is obviously a tinderbox right now, in the middle of revolutions and civil wars, possibly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it is quite easy for somebody in the West to be provocative, and fuck the consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And you think the intended audience for the film was therefore in the West?

With respect, that's an incredibly naive chain of reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
First, no-one is saying what you are saying they are saying. You are fighting an imaginary straw man and giving it our names.

---

quote:

---

Second, no-one is saying that cheating the actors is free speech. California is full of lawyers. I imagine that whoever made the film (if it really exists) is going to get sued to shit and back by a large proportion of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And you think the intended audience for the film was therefore in the West?

With respect, that's an incredibly naive chain of reasoning.

---

How does it matter whom he might have been aiming it at in his mind?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
While many of us are arguing that the filmmaker should be held morally responsible, I don't think many of us are arguing that the film maker should be criminally liable.

---

quote:

---

Post his picture on our Facebook pages with the caption, "Bad Man"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:

quote:

---

Post his picture on our Facebook pages with the caption, "Bad Man"?

---

I say with sincerity that it would be really hilarious if someone did get his picture, and plaster it all over the internet, along with his address. And then use First Amendment arguments to defend their decision to do so.

And I say this as someone who fully defends his right to have made the film in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Hilarious? Your sense of humour is clearly different from mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it is quite easy for somebody in the West to be provocative, and fuck the consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it is quite easy for somebody in the West to be provocative, and fuck the consequences.

---

Not easy at all.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, if Nakoula has two brains to rub together, he must have realized that his identity would quickly emerge ( especially since he was already known to the police) and that he would then be in deep shit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does anybody who, for example, conspires to commit murder expect one of his fellow conspirators to "out" him?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the possible consequences of me writing this message is that some Shipmate somewhere will find that their monitor breathes its last, with these few extra pixels being the straw that breaks the camel's back.

If you can't tell the difference between THAT impact and me secreting a virus that downloads onto your computer and wrecks the graphics driver, you need serious help.

---

Thank you. Someone FINALY understands the difference I've been trying to explain for what seems like forever.

Indeed SAYING (writing your message) is very different from DOING: (secreting a virus that downloads onto someones computer and causing actual property damage). That's a pretty good example actualy.

---

Let's try this again, shall we...

Okay, this time... my God, I can't believe I'm having to do this...

Scenario 1: I come and use your computer. It so happens I'm the person who's using it at the time that the machine packs it in. It was old and bound to happen, but it happened while I was using some seriously memory-intensive graphic design software that I asked you if I could use.

Scenario 2: I come and use your computer, and plant a virus on it because I hate your guts and consider you too stupid to live.


There ya go. Two DOING scenarios. Are we happy now? CAN WE SEE THE ACTUAL POINT YET?!??

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as this saying / doing argument goes I'm happy to let my words stand and let others decide how applicable they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But what does it mean for him to be held morally responsible?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
But what does it mean for him to be held morally responsible?

---

It's true that denouncing people on internet bulletin boards is a fairly meaningless pastime. But George Spigot seems to think that some of the remarks on the first page of this thread might have some effect in giving currency to the idea that people ought to be dissuaded from making this kind of film again; which prospect he regards as a bad thing and I regard as a good thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
We, on orfeo's side of the argument, should certainly be careful not to attack straw men. But at the same time it would be nice if:
a) People acknowledged that the legal argument is largely a straw man. While many of us are arguing that the filmmaker should be held morally responsible, I don't think many of us are arguing that the film maker should be criminally liable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
What I want to know is this: is there anyone on this thread who thinks the people who made this movie should face criminal charges for it?

---

Do you have a crime for reckless endangerment?

Personally I'd probably be happy with them just being sued by the family of the Libyan ambassador for a fairly large sum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

Actually, I think the 'the filmmaker is not responsible for other people's actions' position commits a person holding it to say that the filmmaker has not liability to the actors. True, the actor is afraid because the filmmaker misled Muslim fanatics into thinking the actor intentionally insulted Islam. However, the position goes that the filmmaker would not be responsible if the fanatics acted on that belief. Therefore, if the actor is afraid of the Muslim's actions the actor is not afraid of anything for which the filmmaker is responsible. In fact, on the no responsibility for others' actions position, it's hard to see what the filmmaker did that the actor has any cause to complain about let alone sue for.

---

The filmmaker is, of course, responsible for duping the actors- and I'd say that at least gives them cause for complaint, as the choice they made to participate in the film was based upon his knowing deception of them.

He's still not responsible for fanatics half a world away burning buildings and killing people. For any harm that comes to his actors? There's a sticky wicket. He did commit a deception of them, which in some sense probably obligates him to them.
 

---

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Charlie Hebdo, best known outside of France for its supporting role in the Danish cartoons melodrama, gets back into the game.

I guess you gotta hand it to these guys. Their offices were actually firebombed over plans to put Muhammed on the cover last year, but they just pulled themselves up from the rubble and started in with the same material. And just at the most "sensitive" time, as well.

[ 19. September 2012, 13:52: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
The news just came through that the woman who ran the cafe a few doors down from me for over a decade was murdered because of this, along with many of her colleagues from the airline she now worked for and a number of bystanders. It's so strange to see her familiar face in the news stories.

It all seems a damn sight less academic.

Hateful sociopath in California pokes hornets nest. Hateful sociopath in Afghanistan bombs innocent airline staff. A plague on both of them.
 

---

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
The news just came through that the woman who ran the cafe a few doors down from me for over a decade was murdered because of this, along with many of her colleagues from the airline she now worked for and a number of bystanders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Hateful sociopath in California pokes hornets nest. Hateful sociopath in Afghanistan bombs innocent airline staff. A plague on both of them.

---

This.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
RIP Jeni Ayris
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
While many of us are arguing that the filmmaker should be held morally responsible, I don't think many of us are arguing that the film maker should be criminally liable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
While many of us are arguing that the filmmaker should be held morally responsible, I don't think many of us are arguing that the film maker should be criminally liable.

---

But that is exactly what I have been trying to tell orfeo and the other hangemandflogemers! If they don't think they should be criminally liable what are they arguing about here? Everyone from George Spigot on down agrees with them in that case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

Yes. Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
While many of us are arguing that the filmmaker should be held morally responsible, I don't think many of us are arguing that the film maker should be criminally liable.

---

But that is exactly what I have been trying to tell orfeo and the other hangemandflogemers! If they don't think they should be criminally liable what are they arguing about here? Everyone from George Spigot on down agrees with them in that case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

Yes. Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
OK then, if they aren't criminally liable, sue them. Can one get damages on the basis of losses caused by provocation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

quote:

---

I never saw all of the Danish cartoons. Lord knows they're hard to find.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So it is quite easy for somebody in the West to be provocative, and fuck the consequences.

---

Not easy at all.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, if Nakoula has two brains to rub together, he must have realized that his identity would quickly emerge ( especially since he was already known to the police) and that he would then be in deep shit.

He is a dead man walking.

Even if he avoids being murdered, his life is effectively over, because it will consist of nothing from now on but fear and concealment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does anybody who, for example, conspires to commit murder expect one of his fellow conspirators to "out" him?

---

Happens all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The West is probably deeply hated in many parts of this region, but on the other hand, the West will never leave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The West is probably deeply hated in many parts of this region, but on the other hand, the West will never leave.

---

Both hated and envied, I suspect. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Dubai seems to be a dramatic attempt to do the latter. But the regime will need to loosen up a little more before it will work. For instance, get over the idea that it must be able to eavesdrop on any and every conversation whatsoever. Businesses don't appreciate being denied privacy and, given a choice, will choose to locate elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...
I would see the current unrest in the Middle East in a similar fashion; it is not simply about anti-Islamic films, but represents an anti-Western and anti-US movement, and a discontent over the quasi-imperial attitudes and actions of the West.

...

---

quote:

---

I would see the current unrest in the Middle East in a similar fashion; it is not simply about anti-Islamic films, but represents an anti-Western and anti-US movement, and a discontent over the quasi-imperial attitudes and actions of the West.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"I'll defend your right to express your idea in the most provocative, vulgar, insulting way possible".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
"I'll defend your right to express your idea in the most provocative, vulgar, insulting way possible".

---

Yes indeed.

Not absolutely, but just about as far as it can be practicably pushed.

Otherwise, the concept of freedom of expression is meaningless.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Similarly, I would prefer that participants in political, religious and other disputes in the global public square expressed themselves civilly and responsibly, but recognize that their abuse of freedom of expression is a lesser evil than would be any attempts to control it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alt Wally:

quote:

---

I would see the current unrest in the Middle East in a similar fashion; it is not simply about anti-Islamic films, but represents an anti-Western and anti-US movement, and a discontent over the quasi-imperial attitudes and actions of the West.

---

Was the Fatwa on Rushdie issued because of the sins of the West?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And a political attack as well. Religion and politics often become fused, so that Arab nationalism can conflate with Islam. It is difficult to say what kind of historical perspective people in the Middle East have - whether it is crude or sophisticated. Probably you get both.

Do they remember the Western-led coup against Mossadeq in Iran in 53? I would think so.

Do they remember Suez? Some of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Whereas I fail to see any evil in requiring people to meet certain basic standards when it comes to the method of expressing their ideas. The point being I'm not advocating any restriction of the CONTENT of the ideas.

---

quote:

---

Who exactly does it help when an idea is expressed in a particularly insulting and offensive way, anyway? Is there a benefit to the 'speaker'? Do they increase their chance of getting their idea accepted?

---

quote:

---

You clearly regard Australian law as 'evil' by the way. As I've already posted, we have laws against using postal and telecommunications services in a manner that is menacing, harrassing or offensive. I'm sure these laws apply to Australians in the global public square sending messages overseas just as much as they apply to Australians in the home or workplace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Who exactly does it help when an idea is expressed in a particularly insulting and offensive way, anyway? Is there a benefit to the 'speaker'? Do they increase their chance of getting their idea accepted?

---

quote:

---

You clearly regard Australian law as 'evil' by the way. As I've already posted, we have laws against using postal and telecommunications services in a manner that is menacing, harrassing or offensive. I'm sure these laws apply to Australians in the global public square sending messages overseas just as much as they apply to Australians in the home or workplace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
As a further development, I have just read of a French satirical magazine's publication of offensive cartoons of Mahommed.

Once again, it is reasonable to wish that it hadn't done so, but once again it is essential to uphold the principle of freedom of expression.

---

I am going to essentially repeat something I just said in a Hell thread.

"Freedom of expression" is a term that papers over the gap between two different issues: freedom to express an idea, and freedom to express your idea in any manner.

<snip>

That's what you're all defending here. NOT the right to be critical of Islam or of the prophet Muhammad, but the right to wrap that criticism up in the most provocative, insulting form available with the goal of getting an angry reaction rather than of having people think and consider whether any of the criticisms are valid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What I have a problem with is translating this to "I'll defend your right to express your idea in the most provocative, vulgar, insulting way possible".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The Muslim World also needs to know our approach to freedom of speech viz. publication of The Satanic Verses; the recent film and cartoons are the work of individuals, not a concerted plot against Islam.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Should I be forbidden from saying it? Perhaps not, the right to free speech is a great thing. Should I say it? Personally, I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic if someone could point us to any manner of expressing certain viewpoints (let's use the "Muhammad was a child molester" meme as an example) in any way that reaches meaningful distribution (written, film, etc.) without gravely offending the Muslim world and causing riots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The Muslim World also needs to know our approach to freedom of speech viz. publication of The Satanic Verses; the recent film and cartoons are the work of individuals, not a concerted plot against Islam.

---

I think the Muslim World would find it easier to find out about our approach to freedom of speech if we didn't routinely support dictators in the Muslim World who suppress freedom of speech. It might also help if we refrained from bombing countries in the Muslim World when we disapprove of the dictators.

---

 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

jbohn: The difference is between a) using one's best judgment and common sense; or b) having someone else's opinion of what constitutes good judgment and common sense forced upon one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've been thinking a lot last night about Voltaire's saying, which I'm paraphrasing here a bit as: "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend you right to say it, no matter if my life is at stake."

The thing is: usually, it's not the lives of the people who quote this phrase that are in danger. So, at least sometimes it seems to me that the phrase is turned into: "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend you right to say it, no matter how many lives of other people are at stake."

I think it is important to defend the right to free speech, but to me it makes a big difference if my life is at stake doing so, or someone else's life.

Suppose that I'm in a situation that if I say a certain thing, I'd have a reasonable expectation that someone would die, someone who would stay alive if I didn't say it.

Should I be forbidden from saying it? Perhaps not, the right to free speech is a great thing. Should I say it? Personally, I don't think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
He's still not responsible for fanatics half a world away burning buildings and killing people. For any harm that comes to his actors? There's a sticky wicket. He did commit a deception of them, which in some sense probably obligates him to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
He's still not responsible for fanatics half a world away burning buildings and killing people. For any harm that comes to his actors? There's a sticky wicket. He did commit a deception of them, which in some sense probably obligates him to them.

---

If the principle is that he is unable to mind control fanatics and therefore not responsible for them, he does not acquire the power to mind control fanatics by deceiving the actors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Deceiving the actors may create a special obligation to them, but only if there's an obligation in principle to anybody harmed as a result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:

What about if it turned out that the psychopath had no actual power over the innocent person and had deceived him into the action? Is he at all responsible now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stetson:
So, why did Innocence Of Muslims take off like wildfire, and Merrill's exercise in antique-book disposal languish on Yahoo News? Maybe something to do with the medium, ie. Nakoula's film, like the Danish cartoons, is an easily understood visual draw, whereas there seems to be no image of Merrill burning the Koran. Then again, the Satanic Verses wasn't a visual entity either, and that certainly garnered a reaction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the long ranger:
I have a question for those who say that the person publishing the video has no moral responsibility for the effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The Muslim World also needs to know our approach to freedom of speech viz. publication of The Satanic Verses; the recent film and cartoons are the work of individuals, not a concerted plot against Islam.

---

I think the Muslim World would find it easier to find out about our approach to freedom of speech if we didn't routinely support dictators in the Muslim World who suppress freedom of speech. It might also help if we refrained from bombing countries in the Muslim World when we disapprove of the dictators.

---

Your response appears very similar to the previous paragraph in my post to the one you quoted.

But perhaps you were speeding up for the intellectual punch and didn't see it?



 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jbohn:
I'd be a whole lot more sympathetic if someone could point us to any manner of expressing certain viewpoints (let's use the "Muhammad was a child molester" meme as an example) in any way that reaches meaningful distribution (written, film, etc.) without gravely offending the Muslim world and causing riots.

It can't be done, frankly- meaning freedom of expression would be, under your proposals, effectively non-existent in this case, or in any other in which the offenderati simply don't want to hear something, no matter how it's expressed.

Which means you're talking bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What I have a problem with is translating this to "I'll defend your right to express your idea in the most provocative, vulgar, insulting way possible".

---

We do need to defend that right. Not because we think the right is good in itself - and we can certainly express our disapproval of the use people make of that right. It would be nice to be able to make a legal distinction between constructive uses of free speech and non-constructive uses. However, we can't make that distinction legally because we can't trust governments to make the distinction correctly given that in many of the important cases it will not be in their interests to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that reminds me of the old saying about standing at the back shouting forward.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
I've been thinking a lot last night about Voltaire's saying, which I'm paraphrasing here a bit as: "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend you right to say it, no matter if my life is at stake."

The thing is: usually, it's not the lives of the people who quote this phrase that are in danger. So, at least sometimes it seems to me that the phrase is turned into: "I may not agree with you, but I'll defend you right to say it, no matter how many lives of other people are at stake."

I think it is important to defend the right to free speech, but to me it makes a big difference if my life is at stake doing so, or someone else's life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The Islamic World is certainly deeply aware of the incursions of Western colonialism since the 18th Century.

I think the current task for the West is to remind them ...

---

quote:

---

Kaplan Corday: Both the American film-maker and the French publisher stand every chance of being murdered themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Those like Orfeo who talk complacently about the unlikelihood of Western democracies' turning into dictatorships because of some restrictions on freedom of speech, are trivialising the issue, and obviously have no historical appreciation of how they came to enjoy the privileges which they do.

Yes, there are a few legitimate barriers to absolute freedom of speech, but such freedom as we do have was bitterly fought for from the time of the Enlightenment and earlier (eg Milton's Areopagitica), and must be jealously guarded against the eternal and inevitable tendency of governments, bureaucrats, theocrats and do-gooding meddlers to gradually whittle it away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
There was a discussion on R4's Today, no links up yet, this morning around the publication of the cartoon in the French magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and the Islamic issue due to be published in a German magazine, Titanic, in October - one of the things the German editor said was that cartoons are part of the news and response to it, and leaving it until a time when emotions are less charged made them less relevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The Islamic World is certainly deeply aware of the incursions of Western colonialism since the 18th Century.

I think the current task for the West is to remind them ...

---

I think the current task of the West is to call the Islamic world’s bluff as regards its posture of victimhood, entitlement and self-pity.

Of course the “Christian” West has been guilty of injustice and aggression against Middle Eastern and other Muslim countries, but Muslims are not the only ones with long memories.

No entity such as empire, culture, religion or nation is so free from guilt as to be able to permanently claim the moral high ground.

Even a cursory glance at history throws up issues such as Islamic expansion 632-1095 before the Crusades, and the post-Crusades expansion of the Ottoman Empire, both of which involved dhimmitude for Jews and Christians, or the enslavement of Christians by the Barbary pirates, or the Muslim Arab control of the slave trade within Africa for many centuries.

In fact, it is arguable that Islam’s criticism of Western imperialism is prompted less by principle, than by resentment that it is no longer the one doing the subjugating.

---