35
   

Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

 
 
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 03:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Sadly, far too many Americans have forgotten this.
Not really. I think a poll would indicate that we value our civil liberties far more than any consideration given to isolated nut jobs like the idiot film maker.
wandeljw
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 04:16 pm
Quote:
Rioters, not speech, to blame for violence in Egypt, Libya
(By Brian J. Buchanan, Commentary, FirstAmendmentCenter.org, September 12, 2012)

In the United States, if a movie makes people mad enough to riot, we blame the rioters, not the movie. In much of the rest of the world, it’s the other way around. That’s the difference our First Amendment makes. And our government agencies should affirm as much.

That’s why an official statement released yesterday by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, is troubling. A movie called “Innocence of Muslims,” produced in the U.S. by an anti-Muslim filmmaker, has sparked protests in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was killed along with three other Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. Before the Libya tragedy, with the U.S. Embassy in Cairo fearing siege by protesters, the embassy posted in apparent reference to the movie a statement on its website that said, in part:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. … Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

The embassy statement confuses crucial aspects of the First Amendment.

Yes, “respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy,” but the First Amendment does not outlaw disrespect for religion by individuals. It outlaws actions by government that would establish an official religion or interfere with religious practice. Further, the First Amendment protects the freedom to speak — including the freedom to criticize, condemn or insult any or all religions.

So for an arm of the U.S. government to condemn material that hurts “religious feelings” is itself misplaced. What should be condemned is making speech an excuse for violence.

The Obama administration later disavowed the Cairo embassy statement. And President Barack Obama was a bit more First Amendment-oriented in a statement condemning the rioting and killings: “While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.”

The film denigrates Islam by portraying Muhammad “as a fraud, a womanizer and a madman in an overtly ridiculing way, showing him having sex and calling for massacres,” the Associated Press reported. Still, concerning the president’s statement, from a First Amendment standpoint it’s a little off-putting to say that our nation “rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.” Denigration is speech. Denigration is nothing compared to the actual violent religious persecution of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha’is and others around the world.

No, we can’t expect other cultures around the world to see things as we do. If Muslims think a film insults the Prophet Muhammad, they have every right to be angry. If Christians think artwork in a public museum in the United States insults Christianity, they have every right to be angry.

But we cannot excuse letting anger degenerate into violence, let alone murder, over “religious feelings.”
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 05:03 pm
@wandeljw,
In the United States, even when the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the slaughter of millions of innocents isn't enough to draw a MEH from Americans, we still blame the innocents, not ourselves.

In much of the rest of the world, it’s the other way around. That’s the difference our stunningly successful propaganda system makes. And our government agencies should affirm as much.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 06:54 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

Quote:
Sadly, far too many Americans have forgotten this.
Not really. I think a poll would indicate that we value our civil liberties far more than any consideration given to isolated nut jobs like the idiot film maker.


which is why we keep trading our freedoms for promises of security and why polls show that we could not get the Constitution ratified in is current form today. Drunk
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 07:21 pm
@wandeljw,
Great propaganda piece, Brian.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 11:01 pm
Quote:
There is an Arab pain and a volatility in the face of judgment by outsiders that stem from a deep and enduring sense of humiliation. A vast chasm separates the poor standing of Arabs in the world today from their history of greatness. In this context, their injured pride is easy to understand.

In the narrative of history transmitted to schoolchildren throughout the Arab world and reinforced by the media, religious scholars and laymen alike, Arabs were favored by divine providence. They had come out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century, carrying Islam from Morocco to faraway Indonesia. In the process, they overran the Byzantine and Persian empires, then crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to Iberia, and there they fashioned a brilliant civilization that stood as a rebuke to the intolerance of the European states to the north. Cordoba and Granada were adorned and exalted in the Arab imagination. Andalusia brought together all that the Arabs favored — poetry, glamorous courts, philosophers who debated the great issues of the day.

If Islam’s rise was spectacular, its fall was swift and unsparing. This is the world that the great historian Bernard Lewis explored in his 2002 book “What Went Wrong?” The blessing of God, seen at work in the ascent of the Muslims, now appeared to desert them. The ruling caliphate, with its base in Baghdad, was torn asunder by a Mongol invasion in the 13th century. Soldiers of fortune from the Turkic Steppes sacked cities and left a legacy of military seizures of power that is still the bane of the Arabs. Little remained of their philosophy and literature, and after the Ottoman Turks overran Arab countries to their south in the 16th century, the Arabs seemed to exit history; they were now subjects of others.

The coming of the West to their world brought superior military, administrative and intellectual achievement into their midst — and the outsiders were unsparing in their judgments. They belittled the military prowess of the Arabs, and they were scandalized by the traditional treatment of women and the separation of the sexes that crippled Arab society.

Even as Arabs insist that their defects were inflicted on them by outsiders, they know their weaknesses. Younger Arabs today can be brittle and proud about their culture, yet deeply ashamed of what they see around them. They know that more than 300 million Arabs have fallen to economic stagnation and cultural decline. They know that the standing of Arab states along the measures that matter — political freedom, status of women, economic growth — is low. In the privacy of their own language, in daily chatter on the street, on blogs and in the media, and in works of art and fiction, they probe endlessly what befell them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-arab-world-why-a-movie-trailer-can-lead-to-violencewhy-cant-the-arab-world-accept-offenses-without-violence/2012/09/14/d2b65d2e-fdc8-11e1-8adc-499661afe377_story.html?hpid=z2

boo ******* hoo.....just has we have no sympathy for the perpetual **** up who keeps lashing out and abusing others because they cant deal with being a **** up sympathy for the muslims is massively misplaced.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 11:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
In his quote of a Washington Post article, hawkeye10 wrote:
The coming of the West to their world brought superior military, administrative and intellectual achievement into their midst —


What a way to whitewash Western imperialism in the Middle East which is, after all, the cause of the reactionary violence there against the West.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Sep, 2012 11:44 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
What a way to whitewash Western imperialism in the Middle East which is, after all, the cause of the reactionary violence there against the West.


human interaction is almost always about power. the muslims dont have much because their culture is for crap. having oil helps but the oil will run out or else we will find a better energy source. then the muslims through most of the world will be very hard up.....little smarts, little power, and little money. unless they reform they will soon find themselves to be the rest of the worlds bitches. the muslims can either keep whining about being powerless or else they can catch up the the modern world. the choice is all theirs. trying to play on my guilt will get them no where, as the feminists have exhausted my patience for that ploy.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 03:14 am
@hawkeye10,
For a start Hawkeye, the Moslem world is not the same as the Arab world, large parts of Africa and Asia are Moslem. There's plenty of smart people over there as well, one of the major gripes in Tunisia and Egypt was that there were no jobs for the University educated.

You may like to blame the Arab world's low standard of living on Islam, but it's the corrupt regimes, a lot of which are supported by the West, with rampant cronyism and nepotism that are holding its people back.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 04:06 am
A rare occasion, Izzy's absolutely right. Incidents such as this are useful to leaders in the Muslim world, whether they are exploitative stooges of the western powers, or fanatical Islamists, because they distract their people from the central issue in their misery--their own governments.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 04:56 am
Every country has its own dynamic. Sudan for example, which has had violence against the German and British embassies, and has just announced that it will not allow America to beef up its security with extra marines, is ruled by Omar Al-Bashir, a man who is wanted by the The Hague for war crimes.

Its very much in his interest to focus his people's anger against the West, and give out the narrative that his warrant is motivated by an anti-Moslem crusade, instead of his nefarious activities. Also, a large contingent of marines could be used to execute the arrest warrant, and he obviously wants to avoid that.

Libya is awash with weapons, and of particular concern is the Ansar al-Sharia militia. They are an Islamist group that originated during Gaddafi's rule, a lot of them trained and fought in Afghanistan, and played a pivotal role in the early days of the revolution when they returned home. There was a very good article in yesterday's Guardian about them, and their destabalising influence in Eastern Libya.

Quote:
The black flag of the Islamist Ansar al-Sharia militia continued to flutter over its base in downtown Benghazi, but the garrison was nervous, braced for reprisals after the killing of the US ambassador to Libya on Tuesday night. Many in Benghazi say Sharia played a part in the storming of the US consulate that left four Americans dead.

At the gate of the militia's compound, a bearded commander dressed in black from head to toe said the talk inside was of two US warships that had been deployed off the Libyan coast. "There are two military boats," he said. "Everybody is talking about it. I know they are there, what do I need to do to prove it, swim?"

He refused to give his name or to allow journalists entry. When asked about the death of the ambassador, Chris Stevens, he terminated the interview, ducked back into the base and slammed the gate shut.

Sharia has been blamed for string of recent attacks on western targets, including the destruction of Commonwealth war graves and a rocket attack on the British ambassador in June. The group was formed early in last year's uprising and its members did much of the early fighting that stabilised the frontline in March 2011 when Muammar Gaddafi's forces threatened to capture Benghazi.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/islamist-militia-libyan-anger?INTCMP=SRCH

What's going on in Egypt is probably the most important as it's seen as a bellweather country for moderate Arab opinion. The president, although part of the Moslem Brotherhood, has so far demonstrated a lot of pragmatism, targetting Salafist extremists on the borders with Israel for example, and has done his best to make sure the protests are peaceful.

There is a lot of resentment towards the West that is understandable, they, like Tunisia, suffered a Western supported dictatorship, and the West only supported the Revolution when the writing was on the wall. There's a lot of pent up frustration, and how things play out in Egypt will give a good indication for how this will be felt throughout the region.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 06:13 am
Pastor Terry Jones was invited by a small, right wing neo-Nazi* party to promote the "film". (Seems that the film should be shown in his presence in Berlin)
He won't get a visa, it seems.

* The party isn't really aa neo-nazi organisation, however most of the leading figures have a neo-nazi background.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 07:18 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
is ruled by Omar Al-Bashir, a man who is wanted by the The Hague for war crimes.


Why are all these little pikers mentioned but not the big war criminals, like say, Tony Blair, Izzy?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 07:34 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
and has just announced that it will not allow America to beef up its security with extra marines,


Quote:
Smedley Darlington Butler[1] (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, ... and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

Quote:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.[14]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler


Nothing has changed since Butler's remarks, Izzy. The marines are just hired thugs to advance US business interests.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 07:50 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

**** off an die, Miller.


Why don't you address the instigator of my prior post that you might not appreciate. In my opinion, you are scapegoating me for the grossly poor comment by Izzyla. I was just explaining why putting you, Finn, and myself in the same bucket is foolish, based on NYC social history. I could never appreciate your qualities; however, I do not act with crude pejoratives.

If Izzyla minded his own business, and did not put me in the same bucket, so to speak as you and Finn, I would have had no comment. However, when I am compared to you, I need to explain my differences. I do not like to be mistaken for people of other demographics. It took a long time for my ancestors to develop my genome, in context of a history very different than others' ancestors, not to mention the very different social histories in NYC. So, I do not like when someone across the pond, flippantly, in my opinion, makes such a grossly poor analysis of me.

Mind you, I was just relating social history of the different ethnics in NYC. So, your reaction above tells me you do not like to hear social history of NYC that doesn't sugar coat the past, or at least exposes the antagonistic aspects. But, your pejorative reaction only gives credence to what I said. Thank you for the corroborating comment.
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 08:03 am
It's starting to look to me like this was all planned. The guy who made the movie had to expect some type of reprisal. The bad guys in the mid east who did the violence must have been ready in order to react so quickly. I don't believe this is as simple as it appears. An impossible position for the US to be in.

Yet will still send billions in aid to Eqypt.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 08:26 am
@IRFRANK,
Quote:
Yet will still send billions in aid to Eqypt.


That wasn't aid, Frank. The US doesn't do aid. It's the stingiest first world nation on the planet.

That was money to prop up a dictator so the US would have a place to send people to be tortured. This "aid" is also meant to help the US position US business interests to grab the wealth from the poor of the world and stuff it in the pockets of a few well placed Americans.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 08:33 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Quote:
In the United States, if a movie makes people mad enough to riot, we blame the rioters, not the movie. In much of the rest of the world, it’s the other way around. That’s the difference our First Amendment makes. ...

http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg16/scaled.php?server=16&filename=symbolthumbsupgreend.png&res=landing
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 08:39 am
@Foofie,
Seems to me that your understanding of NYC history is lacking - big time! Our country had a very mobile country beginning in the sixties, and many moved in and out of NYC. The "history of NYC" is the one that has remained in flux for many decades.

Crime was at its worst in the seventies, and many companies moved out - not only because NYC was expensive, but of its high crime rate.

It took several decades before NYC was considered "safe."

Foofie
 
  2  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2012 09:03 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Seems to me that your understanding of NYC history is lacking - big time! Our country had a very mobile country beginning in the sixties, and many moved in and out of NYC. The "history of NYC" is the one that has remained in flux for many decades.

Crime was at its worst in the seventies, and many companies moved out - not only because NYC was expensive, but of its high crime rate.

It took several decades before NYC was considered "safe."




I am talking about the first half of the 20th century. NYC was around 33% Irish/Irish-American, 25% Jewish, 15 % Italian, 10% African-American, less than 5% Puerto Rican, and around 12% other (aka, white Protestant).

That was the demographic breakdown around 1950. There were a few non-Protestant demographics that took a few percentage points from the others; just readjust the main percentages. And, starting in 1900, the city was heavily German (Catholic and Lutheran), Irish, and Jewish, plus the WASPS that were planning to leave in the next few decades. Those were the main populations. Only the Irish and Jews seem to have a remaining political footprint in NYC, even though their numbers are tremendously diminished. When people here think of a white New Yorker, they are thinking of an Italian-American living in Staten Island or Brooklyn, in my opinion.

The "mobility" you talk about is not the main demographic populations that gave NYC its "flavor" over the early 20th century. And, you know that the only Asians were mainly a small Chinese community that worked in restaurants, or laundries.

Please don't tell me what my family lived through.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New A2K is Anti-Free Speech - Question by Brandon9000
Oh My God - Discussion by cjhsa
Is free speech an illusion? - Question by Angelgz2
Time To Boycott EA games? - Discussion by RexRed
Four Dead In O-Hi-O - Discussion by realjohnboy
respect or free speech? - Discussion by dyslexia
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 07:07:12