|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The rights of others are precisely where our freedoms end. So if there is no freedom from offense, then offending people cannot be a limitation on free speech.
I think we need a more serious analysis on the nature of "rights". When I was studying human rights law, it was pointed out to me just how many different kinds of things get labelled as "rights". It was either 4 or 6 categories. I've just been trying to find the relevant material in my old texts, but no luck. Off the top of my head there are freedoms, duties, powers...
Because the problem with your proposition is that talking about other people's "rights" is liable to only allow for cases where we can point to specific people being affected. And there are cases where "freedoms" are impinged despite this. Ever heard of a 'victimless crime', for example?
America is a highly individualistic culture with a strong focus on 'freedoms'. Elsewhere in the world, values are different because the history is different. Society has its interests, too, interests which might sometimes conflict with an individual's freedom.
Laws based on this probably do exist in America as well (do you have any laws designed to restrict your ability to kill yourself through your freedom to smoke, given the massive societal cost of you doing so? You certainly have laws restricting your freedom to use some other exciting but dangerous substances), but they tend to be controversial and cause a large fuss.
[ 23. September 2012, 01:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I note, by the way, that article 19 of the ICCPR says that the exercise of the right of freedom of expression "carries with it special duties and responsibilities". So I don't think I'm going out on some wild uncharted limb here.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
My understanding of freedom of speech is that I can say whatever I like, not only the things the government decides I ought to be allowed to say. This is not a right the government gives me, but one I have merely because I am human, and the government is unjust to limit that right without a just cause.
There are, I seems to me, reasons to limit this freedom in some very limited circumstances. But the possibility of hurting someone else's feelings doesn't seem to be one of them, and you haven't made the case. You seem to be saying that we should all be A-OK with a completely arbitrary limitation of free speech.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But the possibility of hurting someone else's feelings doesn't seem to be one of them,
I have told you at least 5 times that I agree with you on this.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Maybe you should stop keeping us all in suspense about the difference between offending someone and hurting their feelings.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, I've told you multiple times that the word POSSIBILITY is not an accurate description of what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about people wilfully, deliberately using their speech in an attempt to cause offence. Knowing damn well the likely results, and intending those results.
I repeat, let's go back to what Tom Clune said. If someone is going out of their way to cause war, by not only saying something highly offensive to one side, but engineering the situation to make it look as if it was said by the other side, I have no hesitation in saying that I think that it is outside the sense of duty and responsiblity that the ICCPR refers to.
And I think it would be entirely appropriate for the law to say, "for those of you who demonstrate your inability to exercise your right of speech responsibly, we're going to stop you from doing it so incredibly IRresponsibly. Because the potential consequences for all of us are serious enough to override your right".
[ 23. September 2012, 02:12: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The alternative is to say that while a person is forbidden to carry out violence, and forbidden to directly incite violence, they can get away with planning chaos and uproar so long as they're clever enough to figure out a way to incite it indirectly.
And lest this raises up arguments dealt with many, many pages ago, I will echo with mousethief and others: this is not a zero sum game. Holding someone accountable for deliberate indirect incitement does NOT involve saying that those actually incited are not responsible for their own actions.
[ 23. September 2012, 02:20: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
And I think it would be entirely appropriate for the law to say, "for those of you who demonstrate your inability to exercise your right of speech responsibly...
If you can work out how legally compelling standards of speech is compatible with free speech, fair enough.
I can't work it out. Thank God I don't live in a country that hasn't worked it out either. As I said, free speech isn't, in my view, a privilege I've obtained with responsible behavior. It's a right given to me my God which no government can rightly deny without just cause.
[ 23. September 2012, 02:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I meanter say "Thank God I live in a country that hasn't worked it out either."
Oh well. That's what I get for making last second edits.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Iago would have loved America.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Are you done with the simplistic comparisons?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
What's simplistic about Iago? There's nothing simple about him, or about Shakespeare's writing. It's taken until now to think of it, but he is an ideal example of what I'm talking about. I don't think Iago should get off without legal consequence (and neither, it seems, does Shakespeare). Whereas as far as I can see, in America people would be lining up to defend his right to free speech.
After all, what did he DO? Is it his fault if people become enraged and kill each other based on the information he presents to them?
[ 23. September 2012, 02:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
OK, I'm done bothering.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One thing that has surprised me looking around at various forums and blogs, is how ahistorical a lot of the analysis is. People are saying that militant Islam is just like this, and if you point out certain developments in the history of Islam in the Arab countries - for example, in the Nasserite period of Arab secularism and 'socialism' - they are not interested.
...
You could put forward the theory, based on their own sources, that certain Muslims, like certain Christians have a Millenarian, or End Times view of History. To them what is predicted and coming is guaranteed. There is no doubt. History then, unless seen as a prelude to this scenario, is, literally, bunk.
It is a terrifying view.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
as soon as you start acknowledging that there are legitimate restrictions on freedom of speech, you're on MY territory in terms of principle and it takes real chutzpah to then say how terrible I am for restricting free speech. In other words, you're actually admitting that free speech should be restricted. The question is to what extent, and on the basis of what criteria.
Whoa there, you triumphalist tiger you!
There are light years between thinking that no-one should be free to propagate paedophilia (to use an admittedly lurid and hyperbolical, but nonetheless valid, example) and thinking that no-one should be free to publish anti-religious satirical material that someone, somewhere, might find offensive, and overreact to.
Absolutely. That's a very large gap for us both to occupy.
It's the gap occupied by about ninety-nine per cent of people, since scarcely anyone believes in an absolute freedom or denial of expression.
We are on opposite ends of the gap because I believe in maximising free speech and you believe in minimising it.
[ 23. September 2012, 04:23: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
No, I don't believe in minimising it. Not remotely. If you want to say I believe in reducing it from where it appears to currently stand, then yes. But not by very much. Only enough to cause problems for the Iagos of this world.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's simplistic about Iago? There's nothing simple about him, or about Shakespeare's writing. It's taken until now to think of it, but he is an ideal example of what I'm talking about. I don't think Iago should get off without legal consequence (and neither, it seems, does Shakespeare). Whereas as far as I can see, in America people would be lining up to defend his right to free speech.
After all, what did he DO? Is it his fault if people become enraged and kill each other based on the information he presents to them?
False analogy.
We know that Iago told lies in order to produce violence.
The film-maker and publisher presented their opinion of Islam.
They must have known that it would make Muslims angry, but they did not and could not know whether some would respond with arbitrary killings, and we can't know whether they were hoping and intending that that would happen.
Yes, intention is sometimes important in law, as in the distinction between manslaughter and homicide, for example, but when it comes to freedom of speech, it becomes an extremely dangerous and potentially repressive exercise in mind-reading, in which the putative mentalist powers of the offended strong will always claim priority of psychic interpretation over the iconoclastic weak.
[ 23. September 2012, 04:35: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
False analogy.
We know that Iago told lies in order to produce violence.
The film-maker and publisher presented their opinion of Islam.
Now, see you're going into the evidence. Not the principle. Does this mean you accept the principle?
Whether or not the film-maker was lying is a question of the evidence. I certainly don't have all the evidence, but what evidence there IS would, I say, at least warrant further investigation. We have actors claiming they were duped. We appear to have a film-maker disguising who they are to give a different impression.
If you accept that IF the evidence shows the film-maker's motives were dishonest and aimed at causing uproar, then there should be consequences, then we're on the same ground. Because I completely accept that IF the film-maker's motives were to honestly present an opinion about Islam, then that's legitimate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PS The first thing I want to ask about the notion that the film-maker's intention was "to present an opinion about Islam" is: why, then, do you think he didn't tell his actors they were in a film about Islam?
How many directors hide the plot of the film to the point where the actors believe they're making a film about tribes in the desert finding a comet?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
PPS I also think it's worth pointing out to you is that the only reason you know Iago is lying is because you're in the audience, with a degree of omniscience denied to the other characters in the play. People in the play sure as hell don't know Iago is lying. They keep saying how honest and trustworthy he is.
[ 23. September 2012, 05:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PPS I also think it's worth pointing out to you is that the only reason you know Iago is lying is because you're in the audience, with a degree of omniscience denied to the other characters in the play. People in the play sure as hell don't know Iago is lying. They keep saying how honest and trustworthy he is.
Precisely.
We know all about Iago because he is a figure in a play.
It is impossible to know the intention of someone who publishes an offensive and unpopular opinion, and the power of any authority to claim that they do know is very dangerous and frightening.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The rights of others are precisely where our freedoms end. So if there is no freedom from offense, then offending people cannot be a limitation on free speech.
As I understand it, orfeo's position is that if X intentionally provokes Y into attacking me then I have a case against both X and Y. This applies whether X had me in mind specifically or just wanted to provoke Y into attacking a generic someone.
That doesn't seem to me to show any concern for Y's freedom from offence, except in so far as X's attempt has to qualify as provocation.
If Iago provokes Othello into murdering Desdemona, then Desdemona has been wronged by Iago and the state should seek justice for her. Orfeo isn't discussing whether Othello has any kind of case.
[ 23. September 2012, 13:25: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
As I understand it, orfeo's position is that if X intentionally provokes Y into attacking me then I have a case against both X and Y. This applies whether X had me in mind specifically or just wanted to provoke Y into attacking a generic someone.
That doesn't seem to me to show any concern for Y's freedom from offence, except in so far as X's attempt has to qualify as provocation.
He's not talking about provocation, he's talking about offense. He wants to make it illegal to intentionally hurt other people's feelings or to outrage their sensibilities.
At least, that's how I understand the concept of offense, and Lord knows he hasn't clarified to say otherwise. Right now he's conflating offense with tricking a man into murdering his wife, which are not two things I tend to conflate, but that's me.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Right now he's conflating offense with tricking a man into murdering his wife, which are not two things I tend to conflate, but that's me.
It is odd how he's conflating those two things, isn't it? It's almost as if when orfeo talks about how Iago tricks Othello in order to provoke Othello into killing Desdemona orfeo is talking about provocation.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's simplistic about Iago? There's nothing simple about him, or about Shakespeare's writing. It's taken until now to think of it, but he is an ideal example of what I'm talking about.
Er hem
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
It is odd how he's conflating those two things, isn't it? It's almost as if when orfeo talks about how Iago tricks Othello in order to provoke Othello into killing Desdemona orfeo is talking about provocation.
And it's furthermore quite odd that I said he was conflating Iago tricking Othello into murdering Desdemona with offense and not with provocation. And since orfeo is on about banning offense, this talk about provocation is all a red herring anyway.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Mr Rushdie was certainly not helped by a strong anti-Western sentiment among some Iranians. Do you think this might have anything to do with the coup against the democratic government in Iran in 1953? And the installation of the puppet Shah? All aided and abetted by Western intelligence, who didn't like Mossadeq's nationalization of oil companies.
I think they're linked in that the conditions you mention gave rise to a theocratic republic which can make as a part of state policy the suppression of religious dissent. Otherwise I think the Fatwa on Mr. Rushdie is utterly disconnected from western interventionism, especially as it precedes much of the turbulent recent past.
In that episode is probably the crux of the current issues of free speech, cartoons and so on. To politicize Islam means it will be open to the same level of criticism and caricaturization as any other aspect of political life. You can't wrap political authority in Islam and then consider criticism of the religion untouchable. This isn't about the right to be a bigoted video producing moron on youtube, this is about the slide in to totalitarianism.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PPS I also think it's worth pointing out to you is that the only reason you know Iago is lying is because you're in the audience, with a degree of omniscience denied to the other characters in the play. People in the play sure as hell don't know Iago is lying. They keep saying how honest and trustworthy he is.
Precisely.
We know all about Iago because he is a figure in a play.
It is impossible to know the intention of someone who publishes an offensive and unpopular opinion, and the power of any authority to claim that they do know is very dangerous and frightening.
In which case, I just point you to all the other instances where the law looks at intention despite the impossibility of definitively knowing anyone's intentions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
It is odd how he's conflating those two things, isn't it? It's almost as if when orfeo talks about how Iago tricks Othello in order to provoke Othello into killing Desdemona orfeo is talking about provocation.
And it's furthermore quite odd that I said he was conflating Iago tricking Othello into murdering Desdemona with offense and not with provocation. And since orfeo is on about banning offense, this talk about provocation is all a red herring anyway.
Well, I would talk about provocation if anyone had thought it applied when someone engineers events from halfway around the world, but we all seemed quite sure that it didn't.
That's half the point, actually. Gaps in what the current law covers. I'd be happy with provocation if we thought provocation applied. I'd be happy with incitement if we thought incitement applied. But when those issues were raised, everyone was all "Oh no no no, it's too indirect, you can't be responsible for the actions of others".
The only reason for talking about offense is because it is one particular means that a person looking to cause trouble might achieve their intended result. I thought that was clear. But apparently not. You're so incredibly focussed on the causing offense, despite my repeated focus on WHY someone is causing offense.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
What's simplistic about Iago? There's nothing simple about him, or about Shakespeare's writing. It's taken until now to think of it, but he is an ideal example of what I'm talking about.
Er hem
Noted. My subconscious may well have been paying attention. It's been a rough week.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Oh, and everyone? (Last post during breakfast, I promise).
Firstly, Iago didn't just trick Othello into killing Desdemona. He also engineered a fight.
Secondly, and more importantly, it's taken me a minute to realise that you're talking about provocation arse-backwards.
It's a legal DEFENSE. For the actual killer. And it applies to cases where the person you killed was the person who provoked you.
So no, Iago isn't guilty of 'provocation'. There is no CRIME of 'provocation'. And there isn't even a defense of 'being provoked by another'.
[ 23. September 2012, 22:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
(25 minutes after breakfast)
You know what, Zach? You're right!
Let's get away from this focus on intentionally causing offence. Let's go for this new crime of intentional provocation.
For starters, it's wider. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Basically an expanded version of incitement.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
We've already got a legal category for tricking someone into murdering someone else: premeditated murder.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
We've already got a legal category for tricking someone into murdering someone else: premeditated murder.
I doubt you would succeed in convicting Iago, and I certainly doubt you would succeed in convicting someone who doesn't particularly care about a specific victim (in contrast to the direct act of murder, where it's possible to convict someone who was reckless about who they might kill).
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
In which case, I just point you to all the other instances where the law looks at intention despite the impossibility of definitively knowing anyone's intentions.
Why?
We are not talking about law.
We are talking about someone giving their particular slant on a religion, which they are legally entitled to do without having to justify their intentions - thank goodness.
Law applies to those who choose to arbitrarily kill people in response to it.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
I doubt you would succeed in convicting Iago, and I certainly doubt you would succeed in convicting someone who doesn't particularly care about a specific victim (in contrast to the direct act of murder, where it's possible to convict someone who was reckless about who they might kill).
Soliciting crime is already illegal in the United States. You want to make it illegal to make other people angry on the off chance that they will go and kill someone?
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
I doubt you would succeed in convicting Iago, and I certainly doubt you would succeed in convicting someone who doesn't particularly care about a specific victim (in contrast to the direct act of murder, where it's possible to convict someone who was reckless about who they might kill).
Soliciting crime is already illegal in the United States. You want to make it illegal to make other people angry on the off chance that they will go and kill someone?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) You know perfectly well I am not talking about "on the off chance".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We are talking about someone giving their particular slant on a religion, which they are legally entitled to do without having to justify their intentions - thank goodness.
Well, if you want to believe that's what was happening, go for it. I think you're being very naive about the filmmaker's motives, but then you're not the first poster I've said that to.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
So far as I can tell, Orfeo feels that it should be illegal to intentionally offend people, which isn't quite the same thing as just happening to offend. What he hasn't explained (unless I missed it) was why his right to not have his feelings hurt trumps my right to say whatever I like.
Islam intentionally offends me. If the practitioners say they don't, then, well, it's bad enough they intentionally offend me, but then they stand there and deny it. In short, I wanna sue.
Good luck convincing a judge. You're free to try, of course. Given that Islam was around centuries before modern American culture existed, never mind how many centuries before you were born, I'm fascinated to know exactly how you're going to satisfy your evidential burden.
Humans were around long before Islam and so was the general human respect for honesty and the yearning for liberty.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
