|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
And you think the intended audience for the film was therefore in the West?
With respect, that's an incredibly naive chain of reasoning.
--------------------
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 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.
Hear hear. The way some people are arguing, you'd think that it wasn't possible for more than one person to be convicted over the same crime.
--------------------
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
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
If you look at my last link it may not be chummy the meth cooking fraudster who was the er... brains/moneybags of this outfit. More interesting though would be who translated it into Arabic & who brought it to the attention of the relevant Egyptian rabble-rousers with TV shows & popular blogs. We don't yet have the full story. Klutzy unexpected viral hit or careful piece of social media marketing? Who knows yet?
The blame it on 'The Jews' shtick tho- if you think that was meant to be harmless, then l would like a loan of the rose-tinted spectacles, they must be highly efficacious!
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
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.
That is effectively the argument you're mounting, you know. It's become utterly unacceptable to MOUNT that argument in that context, but you are mounting exactly the same KIND of argument. Whether you recognise it or not. You are saying that a person who appears in film or television has set themselves up and really can't expect the standard of behaviour that 'ordinary' people are entitled to receive from those around them.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It is foolish to expect the same treatment as "ordinary" folk. There will be a lessoning of personal privacy, Fair, perhaps not, but it is the reality. However, abuse is not excusable. It is not part of the job description.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Orfeo wrote:
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.
I missed the part where someone tried to rape, or otherwise physically assault, Ms. Dawson.
If I say "Politicians who run for office in a democracy shouldn't complain if they get subjected to vitriolic insults, it just comes with the terrirory", is that really the same thing as saying they shouldn't complain if someone fires a gun at them?
And what do you think, Orfeo, about Ms. Dawson starring on a show where at least one participant got up and told an obscure man who wasn't even involved with the show to "suck on that"? How do you think he must have felt having that directed at him out of the blue? On national TV. Was there an earnest campaign for more civility-in-media launched on his behalf?
[ 15. September 2012, 05:09: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I missed the part where someone tried to rape, or otherwise physically assault, Ms. Dawson.
And I missed the part where we agreed that the only way you could hurt someone was physically.
Because I emphatically don't agree. That's precisely why we're having this whole conversation about freedom of speech. Because some people seem to think that different rules apply so long as it's 'just' speech.
I'll repeat what I said before: in THIS country, what happened to Ms Dawson was a crime. That's not simply my opinion, it's being considered a crime by the authorities. Using a postal service, telephone service or internet service to harass, threaten, intimidate etc. is a criminal offence. The primary difficulty in prosecuting is establishing the identity of the criminals, not any question about whether or not the actions were within the law.
[ 15. September 2012, 07:20: 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
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
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.
What we have here is more like a black activist group making a film called 'WASPs are scum' and the Klan lynching some random black kid in retaliation.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I think America needs to watch very carefully the reaction to these murders coming out of various parts of the Muslim world. Especially the reactions of the governments of supposed "allies". This is the time you can really see and count your real friends.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Dawson deserves its own thread I reckon.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Except that this particular crowd of crazies always seem likely to be inflamed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Except that this particular crowd of crazies always seem likely to be inflamed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Speech might be free in the modern world, but it's not cheap. And it isn't free in the vast majority of the world. We who think we are strong must bear with the weak: Our brothers and sisters on the poor Islamic street.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
And you must admit that while the world wouldn't be all sweetness and unicorns if it were secular,
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Except that this particular crowd of crazies always seem likely to be inflamed.
But no-one's going to put in your newsfeeds all the times that a Muslim grits their teeth and ignores the latest foul insult, are they?
It's known as sampling bias.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
Which would have a net effect of zero. So why even mention it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
There will always be infinite hairs to split; perhaps my example was not as well written as it could have been. In the situation you describe, I'd tend toward incitement as well- though I'm unsure how it might play out once the lawyers get involved.
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.
While horrible (and I agree that this sounds more like incitement, albeit a long-term case), it's really not the same situation as the OP. In the Rwandan case, as described, there was a specific threat, to specific people, rather than a generalized insult to a wide group of people. Also, in the Rwandan case, we can surmise that the folks doing the broadcasting likely had a more direct role in the killing that followed, unlike the filmmakers in the OP.
It's a long way from "Let's go kill those Tutsis" to "Mohammed is a so-and-so", isn't it?
I don't think anyone is describing free speech as an absolute- shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is still impermissible. But so is prior restraint to the extent that it has a chilling effect on free speech and the free exchange of ideas, even (especially?) those ideas we may find distasteful. I think we all realize a balance has to be struck- it's just a matter of hashing out where to put it...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
An so then what? If the underlying mechanism is still in place, there will be no substantive change.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How should Christians cater for those superstitious about the source of food and other food taboos ? Kosher, halal, meat at all ? Or those that regard specific time as holy ? Or bread as transubstantiated ? How should Christians SPEAK about these things ? In their freedom ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Compared to the koran, though, the movie hasn't done a thing to provoke violence and, along with the hadiths, speaks more ill of Islam than anything else to come along. So, if we are going to go on about movies (interesting how Maher doesn't get mentioned) spuring violence, let's hold writers and publishers to account, too.
Rodney King was a thousand times the prophet Muhammed ever was just by asking "Can we all get along?"
I'm wondering what type of happy pills Nick Lowe was taking when he wrote "Peace, Love and Understanding".
There's my rant for the day. Time to have a beer, go hit the pool and try to forget for a while just how fallen this world is and how a body count of the hundreds of millions is heading down the pike.
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
But surely, in deciding what constitutes "menacing, harassing or offensve" in a given case, the law would take into account the status and position of the person receiving the communication?
Let's say a driver in Perth, through no fault of his own, accidently kills some children at a crosswalk. Someone gets his twitter number(or whatever it's called) and tweets him "Hey, I bet you really get your rocks off thinking about all those dead kids, eh?"
Now let's say someone tweets the same thing to John Howard, to protest his decision to send troops to Iraq(thus killing innocent children, as the tweeter sees it). Can anyone really argue that Howard has the same right to claim offense as the unfortunate driver in Perth?
At the very least, regardless of what the law would say, if John Howard had a mental breakdown and checked himself into a hospital because of the nasty tweets, he'd be the object of widespread ridicule, not a sympathy campaign.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mere Nick. So that's how we're to love our enemies ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
a balance has to be struck- it's just a matter of hashing out where to put it...
Completely agree. And I also agree that the incitement to violence by suggesting to group x that they might do violence to group y is quite different from saying something that group x find offensive and therefore makes them attack group y.
On the other hand, if the thing that group x found offensive was actually said by group z, calculating that group x would react by targeting group y, that might come somewhere between the two examples.
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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?
I don't see the conflict between not wanting bullies to push people around and not wanting them to have an excuse to push people around.
By the by I thought this debate might be related to this thread.
Debate: Freedom of Expression Must Include the License to Offend (2006)
I love listening to debates. But I do apreciate that like me not many people will have 1 hour 42 minutes free to sit and watch it. I manage by streaming them over my phone and listening to the audio while I walk to work.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
Once again, nobody has said otherwise.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
mousethief ... what's happening to me ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
If that's the argument, I don't think it works. There's a line between satire and hate-speech, and from the description of the film the film crosses the line accelerator down and both fists in the air.
I don't recall reports of riots provoked by Christopher Hitchens' efforts at criticism of religion, let alone Dawkins. Therefore, arguing that condemning the filmmakers here will lead to suppression of legitimate criticism would seem to be extrapolating on little evidence.
--------------------
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 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.
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
And 'censoring ourselves' is a peculiar phrase. If somebody posts on Hell to say that what somebody said was Hell-worthy that's not the same as censoring what they said. If I try to avoid saying anything that will get me called to Hell that's not comparable to the hosts and admins preventing me from posting.
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?
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
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.
So, let's expand on your example. Suppose that in London's Hyde Park, there is a regular speaker who delivers crude invective against Irish nationalists on a weekly basis(let's assume that the speeches don't violate the UK's Hate Laws). And someone in his audience secretly films these tirades with his cell-phone, and sends them to some Nationalists in Belfast. The Nationalists riot every time they see one of these videos.
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?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mere Nick. So that's how we're to love our enemies ?
What part of my rant were you referring to?
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
mousethief ... what's happening to me ?
You are trapped in Groundhog Day. And you don't get out until you have persuaded a right-wing American to vote for universal tax-funded healthcare.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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'.
I was actually thinking of the US government having a long, hard look at regimes in the Muslim World they support financially, Martin. No point in doing that if you get no moral support in an instance such as these murders.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
If protesters in the Middle East really wanted to hurt the United States, they would attack oil production. Even a bit of uncertainty in the markets leading to a spike in prices could take us back to the 70s embargo. But they don't. Why? Because their own governments would squish them like bugs if the interfered with the flow of petrodollars. Oil is the only "moral support" the US really wants from the Middle East.
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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.
Nope, it didn't work like that. I've finally found some missing pieces. There is a lot of information out there & getting media attention for your crummy you tube video isn't a given. For things to travel via newsfeeds they have to become news. In fact it turns out that they had to punt the story about the video quite hard to get it taken up by an Egyptian journalist who initially wasn't at all keen.
So it turns out that they did deliberately promote its take-up in Egypt with the stated aim of attacking Islam. In Egypt it then went viral as conservative pundits were asked for their opinions as papers began to run the story & it got legs & became further exploited from there. Sounds like these charmers were happy to chuck matches into the foyer of the proverbial crowded theatre to give things a hand.
The journalist who broke the story is interviewed
here.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Another analogy is provided by Mosley’s attempted BUF march through the East End in 1936.
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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?
No
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
