|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: U.S. ambassador to Libya killed in Benghazi
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Having just read the Ship's Guidelines for Purgatory and the 10 Commandments, if you only have freedom of expression when you're free to express yourself in whatever vile manner you choose, then clearly the Ship is restricting the rights of free speech of American Shipmates.
I'm surprised this issue hasn't been agitated. I mean, sure, they say that all opinions are welcome here, but then they put all these rules about how you convey those opinions.
--------------------
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
Different standards apply in different contexts Orfeo, whether they are codified and sanctionable or not.
Hence the silliness of your examples from the workplace and the family.
On the Ship I have the choice of accepting the rules for Purgatory, or not posting.
I personally find the sort of abuse that goes on in Hell offensive, puerile and pointless, and prefer to stay out of it, but accept that the Ship allows it, and that some choose to use it.
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
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.
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?
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.
We get pretty good scores when it comes to freedom of the press and democracy, so the idea that you need THAT kind of 'freedom of expression' to avoid being a repressive dictatorship isn't going to pass muster as far as I'm concerned.
[ 20. September 2012, 06:18: 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
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.
Of course, it could be a complete coincidence that the Iranian revolution which followed was accompanied by anti-Western feelings.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
The Islamic World is certainly deeply aware of the incursions of Western colonialism since the 18th Century.
How sophisticated the analysis of that is would vary. There would be some extremely simplistic ones - as put forward by extremists currently and others far more nuanced.
The Islamic World has certainly benefited from some of its recent intercourse with the West.
I think the current task for the West is to remind them that all Western influence has not been bad and that the West is not intent on waging war, either physical or cultural, against Islam. The sooner the last bits of Bush's "War on Terror" (equated by many Muslims as "War on Islam") are wound back the better.
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.
This seems to me to be a time for much needed two way dialogue.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sir Pellinore
Good post. I find myself surprisingly optimistic actually. Some doom-sayers predicted that the Arab spring would lead to Islamist governments, well, it has in Egypt, but they seem fairly sensible at the moment. Of course, it could all go down-hill.
I am sure many Muslims and Arabs are aware that extremists on all sides are trying to stoke up the flames, yet as you say, there is probably also plenty of good will around.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Taking Sir Pellinore's comments further, at least a part of the reaction against the US stems from the years of dictatorship under which most Arabs - indeed most Muslims - have been governed. They assume that anything published has survived a censorship regime of the sort to which they are accustomed, rather than the very much more relaxed one with which we grew up. Accordingly, they react against the US for its perceived failure properly to apply the law, and so to condone the attack of which they complain.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Yes you inevitably are, because someone has to decide what is method and what is content and that someone is likely to be the rich and the powerful just like it almost always is.
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?
Probably not, but that's there problem.
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.
Hang about, you are extending you argument here, "menacing" and "harrassing" are quite different from "offensive".
Anyway, there are similar laws here, though not as restrictive as yours. And in some contexts the in the USA as well. They are freer than most but not as free as sometime gets claimed. And I would prefer it if all our laws were less restricting.
[ 20. September 2012, 10:43: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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?
Why on earth are you asking me?
I have stated a number of times that I personally oppose "insulting and offensive" communication.
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.
Satirising a religion is not "menacing, harassing", and while it is "offensive" to adherents of the religion, it obviously is permissible, because Christians are the constant targets of it (some of it from muslims) without any legal action being taken.
Anyone who was seriously concerned about "menacing, harassing or offensive" comment in Australia would be highlighting Islamist attacks against groups such as Jews and women.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
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.
Sometimes, the purpose of expression isn't to convince others of a viewpoint- it's simply to get something off of one's chest, or for amusement, or what-have-you. All of which are, and of right ought to be, protected. Again, with feeling, who gets to decide what is "acceptable" speech, and what is not? You? me? Our respective governments? The Pope? Who?
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
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 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
This.
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.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
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.
The bit about "meaningful distribution" is sort of begging the question(in the original meaning of the phrase), because it could be the case that something reaches "meaningful distribution" precisely because it has offended Muslims. And not all instances of anti-Islamic agitprop have reached such distribution.
Charles Merrill burned a Koran to protest Muslim homophobia some time ago. And, I'd bet dollars to donuts that somebody somewhere e-mailed this information to someone in the Muslim world. But any ensuing controversy was stillborn. No riots, embassy burnings, impassioned pleas from Foggy Bottom to respect Muslim sensitivities, nothing. I couldn't even tell you exactly where he did this, such was it's underwhelming impact on the world.
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.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
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.
This is why I would like all the Muhammad (pbuh) video's and cartoons to be decoupled of discussions about the right to free speech somehow.
The problem is that we're tied to legalistic frameworks. What I'd personally like, is to say to the people who are thinking about publishing these video's and cartoons: "We ask you not to publish these just to make a statement about free speech. Yes, you have that right, and you could publish them if you want. But if you do, the expectation is that some people will die, people who would stay alive otherwise. No, you won't be the ones who killed them, but their deaths are dependant in some way of you publishing this stuff. Therefore, we ask of you not to do it." It would be great if this could be institutionalized in some way, but I also admit that I don't know how.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
Yes, that reminds me of the old saying about standing at the back shouting forward. Supposed to have been said about old colonels sending young men over the top.
It's fairly easy to lob a verbal or filmic grenade into a situation, which is fairly volatile, and then presumably watch the ensuing mayhem, maybe commenting, well, they shouldn't be so touchy.
If we want to get on with the Middle East, then insulting them is not the best way to do it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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. 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.
--------------------
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
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
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.
True.
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.
Not sure about this one. He did, directly, cause the actors to be in the film by deceiving them- which, one could argue, creates a special responsibility if his deception leads to harm coming to them.
Note that this does not, to my mind, obligate him to completely tangential harm coming to others- the consulate thing was not something he played a direct role in. The two groups (people the filmmaker had direct involvement with vs. persons he had no knowledge of/involvement with) are separate cases.
--------------------
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
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I have a question for those who say that the person publishing the video has no moral responsibility for the effect.
A person is captured by a violent psychopath. The psychopath forces the innocent person to do something despicable. Does the psychopath have any moral responsibility for the violence?
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?
How about if the roles are changed and the innocent person deliberately says something which causes the psychopath to be violent?
How is the final case any different to the former cases?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
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?
Yes, Muhammed is certainly responsible to a large degree.
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
A conservative Egyptian religious TV channel aired "Innocence of Muslims," and it took off after that. Salman Rushdie had previously published controversial things, so he was already on people's radar in predominantly Muslim countries, and The Satanic Verses received wide acclaim when it was published.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Who are they?
We have people saying that a publisher ought to have no criminal responsibility for someone else's over-reaction to their legitimate speech. That's not the same as moral responsibility.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
Which means, yet again, we've completely ignored questions of INTENT.
I just don't get why this is so difficult for people, and it came up in the Hell thread as well. The law deals not only with conduct and results, it deals with mental state [b]all the time[/i]. We have different rules in lots of areas depending on whether the result was something you intended, something you were reckless about, something you were negligent about, something you did by mistake etc etc etc.
And yet time and again, people keep saying "oh, but you couldn't say that without causing offense". Sure. Maybe you can't prevent someone somewhere on the planet shouting "I'm offended!". But that is totally irrelevant! I'm not talking about having a duty to avoid an outcome, I'm talking about being required NOT to intentionally have it as your goal.
It's a completely different proposition. The entire point is exactly the same as "my liberty to swing my first stops when it would connect with your nose", and I cannot understand why people treat speech as some special category where the known presence of a nose can be deliberately and consciously discounted.
[ 21. September 2012, 03:30: 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
ADDENDUM: Even more than that, by giving permission for the nose to be deliberately aimed for.
--------------------
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 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.
Which is precisely why separation of powers exists. Laws are made by parliaments, not governments, and it's courts, not governments, that get to decide how the law applies in an individual case.
Principles-based laws exist everywhere. It's precisely why, for example, so many courts have been able to say that a ban on same-sex marriage is incompatible with a state's or country's constitutional statements about equality.
--------------------
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 quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that reminds me of the old saying about standing at the back shouting forward.
From Macaulay's Lays Of Ancient Rome:
Was none who would be foremost
To lead such dire attack;
But those behind cried, "Forward!"
And those before cried, "Back!"
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Both the American film-maker and the French publisher stand every chance of being murdered themselves.
Voltaire defied an eighteenth century French government which still carried out executions by burning, breaking on the wheel and being pulled apart by horses.
That was why he maintained houses on both sides of the border with Geneva.
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Kaplan Corday: Both the American film-maker and the French publisher stand every chance of being murdered themselves.
I know, and in a sense I can appreciate that as a sign of courage. But there's no denying that by doing this, there are also other, innocent people whose lives are on the line.
Putting your own life at stake is one thing, putting other people's lives at stake (too) is another. And that makes a big difference to me.
There's another thing that I've been thinking about. I mean, the protests are a lot about the use of the image of Muhammad (pbuh), much less about criticizing him in general.
In a sense, this image belongs to the Muslims. For centuries, they have buried their loved ones in the name of their Prophet, and all of this time they've avoided making an image of him. We wouldn't even know about him if it wasn't for them.
In fact, there are a lot of things that I'm not allowed to put on YouTube, because the image belongs to someone else. That's copyright of course, and most people can see the sense in that.
What my --undoubtedly naďve-- dream would be is: what if we could give to Muslims worldwide a kind of copyright to the image of Muhammad (pbuh), renewable every 50 years.
I know I know, there would be a lot of juridical obstacles to this, as you'll undoubtedly tell me. But if I'm allowed to put these aside for a moment, I think there's a certain beauty to this.
We all accept (perhaps grumblingly, but we do) that we're not allowed to put the latest episode of The Big Bang Theory on YouTube, because it belongs to someone else. What would be the difference if we wouldn't be allowed to put an image of Muhammad (pbuh) there, because it belongs to someone else?
We would still be able to criticize Islam, and even to say that he was a paedophile (people do that every day on the internet without much protest from them).
So what would the difference be? Is it because our copyright restrictions are based on money, and this kind of restrictions would be based on religion? Who gets to decide which is the most important of the two?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
First of all, I am not trivilalising anything. Secondly, I don't get how you think I'm "complacent".
And thirdly, 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.
The notion that somehow all proposed restrictions are unacceptable, yet any restriction already in place is fine, is a fairly remarkable notion. What, we've reached the perfect balancing point? How fabulous!!
I'd actually take you more seriously if you were in here either arguing that something like defamation law is an unacceptable burden on free speech, or articulating what common element the existing, acceptable burdens on free speech have that other proposed burdens wouldn't have.
Continuing to assume, of course, that speech is some special class of action with its own rationales that don't apply to all the other forms of action we allow to be regulated. American society does also tend to take a dimmer view of regulation generally than many other countries.
--------------------
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 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.
In other words, he wants to make money from sales while there is money to be made. Like other editors (including those who enjoy publishing topless photos of princesses) he would never come out and say that.
The fact that he doesn't actually know whether or not Muhammad is pictured in his montage is jaw-dropping.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
I think every Western diplomat would be well advised to carry that in his knapsack, as he sallies off to do business with the Ottoman.
All our brave boys have to say to the dusky raghead, is that: stop being so self-pitying. Stop bleating on about invasions and occupations. And don't whine about the Palestinians please, otherwise I shall be forced to come over all headmistress, and tell you off! Or we might have to invade you all over again.
That should settle a few diplomatic nerves!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
If it is hysterical to say that McCarthy could have turned the US into a dictatorship it must surely be equally hysterical to describe talking about the unlikelihood of Western democracies turning into dictatorships now as complacent. If we oughtn't to be complacent now they certainly oughtn't to have been complacent then.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
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.
Which means, yet again, we've completely ignored questions of INTENT.
I just don't get why this is so difficult for people, and it came up in the Hell thread as well.
No, no-one is ignoring intent, you are just imagining it.
And I don't get why ist is so difficult for you to think up meaningful answers to pretty much any point made on this thread.
A simple question Do you think that the publication or distribution of a work of fiction or satire that makes unpleasant and untrue allegations about historical characters (not living people) should be banned by the criminal law?
And two supplementary questions: if you do think that, then who ought to decide which historical characters are so protected, and how nasty the allegations would have to be before a prosecution happens? And second, if you do not think that, what the fuck are you arguing *for* here? Because you have made it clear that you think supporters of free speech are a load of lilly-livered idealistic cowardly ignorant sixth-form loony-left hamster-loving bar-room-bores who wet their pants on alternate Thursdays, but you haven't made it clear what you would have our the governments or the law do instead.
That first supplementary question really is the serious one of the three. Who decides? Who decides if the allegation is untrue? Who decides if the allegation is nasty enough to prosecute? Who decides which historical figures can be protected and wbich can't be? Is only Muhammad to be protected by law? Is Jesus? Gutu Nanak? Gautama? Julius Caesar? Timur? Richard III? Mussolini? Stalin? Charlie Parker? CS Lewis? Eric Gill? General Patton?
Those are serious questions. If you bring in Orfeo's Law to Protect Muslims from Insult, how do you answer all the other peopel who will then turn up and ask the same thing for themselves? Do you really want the Scientologists to be able to tell us what we can and can't say about them? Because they would love it if they could.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point is exactly the same as "my liberty to swing my first stops when it would connect with your nose", and I cannot understand why people treat speech as some special category where the known presence of a nose can be deliberately and consciously discounted.
That's a complete misrepresentation. No-one is saying that there can be no criminal resposibility for telling people to go and hit someone on the nose.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No, no-one is ignoring intent, you are just imagining it.
...
A simple question Do you think that the publication or distribution of a work of fiction or satire that makes unpleasant and untrue allegations about historical characters (not living people) should be banned by the criminal law?
This seems to be casting the question in the "when did you stop beating your wife" mold. Try this: The man is known to have created a Jewish identity when he released the video in Arabic. Would you agree that it is fair for the authorities to investigate whether he was trying to foment a war between Israel and Egypt, and if that was his intent, that there might just possibly be room for considering legal action against him? Or do you believe that freedom of expression is absolute in some weird way that does not apply to any other freedom on the face of the earth? Or is there some third option that you would like to raise up?
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No, no-one is ignoring intent, you are just imagining it.
Meaning?
If you are asserting that I am imagining intent in the particular case, you have AGAIN missed the point. I'm talking about principles applicable to all cases, not about the particular case. The intent of the particular case would be assessed in exactly the same way that intent is assessed in every case where a law makes intent an element of either a criminal offence or a civil tort.
quote:
A simple question Do you think that the publication or distribution of a work of fiction or satire that makes unpleasant and untrue allegations about historical characters (not living people) should be banned by the criminal law?
Without more? No. Because you haven't told me the purpose of doing so.
--------------------
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 ken:
That's a complete misrepresentation. No-one is saying that there can be no criminal resposibility for telling people to go and hit someone on the nose.
Aaaaand also, your ability to take an analogy and read it in a literal fashion is nearly as impressive as... oh, I don't know, the 3 or 4 other people who've done the exact same thing with analogies that I or others have posted. If you think I was talking about an actual nose, WAY TO MISS THE POINT. AGAIN!
What exactly IS it about all you people who can only think in terms of physical things? Is THIS why everyone is so keen on free speech? Because the only forms of damage you can conceive are physical forms of damage?
[ 21. September 2012, 12:38: 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
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
[qb] 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.
Absolutely, this doesn't really have anything to do with portrayals of the prophet in cartoons whether or not that is disrepectful and everything to do with a strangely ambivalent attitude to the West which is more like that of a spurned lover. It is not wholly unconnected that the demographic of those attacking the West is similar to those deperately trying to flee the Arab World and get to the West. If the mobs were really concerned for their fellow moslems then where are the mass rallies in support of the innocent victims of the civil war in Syria?
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Let me get this straight, because I'm obviously hard-of-thinking at the moment.
If some freaky idiot produces a movie that causes an angry violent person to kill a totally unrelated individual, he might have some moral but no legal responsibility.
If some crappy satirical mag takes a swipe at a religious figure who died 1500 years ago 'because it is the right time', that is a freedom of speech that should be respected and they have no responsibility (legal or otherwise) for any damage that is caused.
And if one violent drug gang lures a policeman into a trap whereby another drug gang shoot him dead, the first gang have no legal responsibility.
However, if some idiot posts a load-of-crap facebook page making some inane comment which is counter to the general grief of a population, that is somehow an instant crime which requires the police to go around to his house and make an arrest within 24 hours.
Anyone would think this secular society in which we live is rather unclear on exactly what the moral and legal responsibility should be for posting inane and offensive crap.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think free speech is often a practical issue in a particular context. For example, without doubt, Western governments are hotfooting it right now to Arab capitals, hoping to establish good relationships with the new governments. And they will be accompanied by teams of people, economists, diplomats, writers, scientists, and so on.
If you are one of these people, and go into a meeting room with your Arab counterparts, presumably you are not going to start the proceedings with derogatory remarks about Mohammed.
Of course, private individuals have the luxury of being able to do this, but then presumably, they are not interested in establishing good relations with the Arab world. I am not saying that they should be either; just making the point that our speech matches our intentions.
Personally, I hope that we can establish good relations with the Arab world, and that we can thereby encourage moderate Muslims.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think what we have here is a clash of cultural understandings. What may be simple satire in the West may be perceived as part of a combined cultural and military assault on Islam by the West. There lies the problem. In the Middle East it is not perceived as a matter of free speech but an attack on the religion of Islam and Muslims' self-respect.
Without a doubt. Orfeo argues that the film was intended to provoke violence. I'd suggest that the film was clearly intended to prevent conversions to Islam and encourage people to give it up. If someone wants to call that an attack on the religion of Islam, so be it. We get similar attacks on the religion of Christianity all the time, with the intent of preventing conversions or encouraging apostasy, and we don't go around assassinating even those responsible, let alone uninvolved third parties.
I for one rather appreciate such outside criticism. It keeps the church honest and sensible, and when it is in poor taste or overplays its intellectual hand, I think it is counterproductive.
Does it work? That atheists in the West believe that their campaigns of satire and persuasion are effective is evident from the fact that they continue them. OK, the Danish cartoon I cited above resulted in some noisy-angry-demonstration games whenever a journalist was nearby. I would hope that it also resulted in some young guys thinking again before swallowing the absurd promise of lots of virgins to screw in the afterlife if they become suicide bombers. Violence can be prevented as well as "caused", although of course the more quiet effects will never make the headlines.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I would hope that it also resulted in some young guys thinking again before swallowing the absurd promise of lots of virgins to screw in the afterlife if they become suicide bombers. Violence can be prevented as well as "caused", although of course the more quiet effects will never make the headlines.
Indeed. Fostering an us vs them mentality increases resolve and solidarity and comtempt for Them among Us, but among Them it creates moderation and realisation that Us might be right.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think one point about the 'cultural and military assault on Islam', cited above, is that the West has actually done this, perhaps not on Islam as such, but certainly on an Arab and Muslim country such as Iraq, which basically disintegrated after the Western invasion.
So I think for some Arabs and Muslims, such ideas are not theoretical, but immediate and recent. Of course, one can add other incidents, such as the occupation of Afghanistan, the destruction of the Palestinian people, the installation of the Shah in Iran, and so on.
In other words, it's not an imaginary leap for an Arab or Muslim to see a Western assault.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
I think what we have here is a clash of cultural understandings. What may be simple satire in the West may be perceived as part of a combined cultural and military assault on Islam by the West. There lies the problem. In the Middle East it is not perceived as a matter of free speech but an attack on the religion of Islam and Muslims' self-respect.
Without a doubt. Orfeo argues that the film was intended to provoke violence. I'd suggest that the film was clearly intended to prevent conversions to Islam and encourage people to give it up. If someone wants to call that an attack on the religion of Islam, so be it. We get similar attacks on the religion of Christianity all the time, with the intent of preventing conversions or encouraging apostasy, and we don't go around assassinating even those responsible, let alone uninvolved third parties.
Which brings us back to Orfeo's "intent" fixation, and to the question he's not yet answered, despite several posters asking: Who gets to make the determination? Who decides a) what the intent was; and b) what speech/expression is valid and what isn't?
It also brings up the choice thing again- I have a hard time with believing that someone who insults Muslims is responsible for their violent response, when other groups (Christians, Jews, atheists, etc.) are insulted in much the same way and don't respond violently- it seems the issue there isn't the insult, but the response to 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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
If some freaky idiot produces a movie that causes an angry violent person to kill a totally unrelated individual, he might have some moral but no legal responsibility.
If some crappy satirical mag takes a swipe at a religious figure who died 1500 years ago 'because it is the right time', that is a freedom of speech that should be respected and they have no responsibility (legal or otherwise) for any damage that is caused.
And if one violent drug gang lures a policeman into a trap whereby another drug gang shoot him dead, the first gang have no legal responsibility.
The difference in the last example is that the gang targeted a specific individual -- the intent to get this person killed is clear. The dots do not clearly connect in the other examples. Hence under US law they are examples of protected free speech.
quote:
However, if some idiot posts a load-of-crap facebook page making some inane comment which is counter to the general grief of a population, that is somehow an instant crime which requires the police to go around to his house and make an arrest within 24 hours.
I'm not familiar with this -- where did it happen?
quote:
Anyone would think this secular society in which we live is rather unclear on exactly what the moral and legal responsibility should be for posting inane and offensive crap.
In the US it's clear. I'd argue that the hate speech laws and the laws against Holocaust denial in other countries muddy the waters considerably.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
the Muslim world.
This section in The Week seems pertinent here: quote:
We've heard a lot about "the Muslim world" lately, said Sarah Kendzior on Aljazeera.com. The New York Times, for one, reckons "the Muslim world" is prone to violence. The Associated Press provides a guide to "Five other incidents that inspired rage in the Muslim world". The Washington Post asks: "Why is the Muslim world so easily offended?" Well guess what? The vast majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims do not rise up against idiotic film clips, nor do all of those who are offended advocate violence. As a phrase, "the Muslim world" isn't harm¬less shorthand: it's typical of the way in which Muslims are often stereotyped as an amorphous mass, violent and easily manipulated. As such, it plays into the hands of both Islamophobes and the corrupt "Islamist instigators" of this week's opportunistic violence. Time it was retired.
Instead, let's hear more about the many peaceful Libyans who marched in protest against the killing of the US ambassador, said Nathan Lean in The Washington Post. Or the countless Islamic organisations worldwide, from Minnesota to Singapore, which have publicly condemned the violence.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
