But Free Speech isn't going to be a casualty of these attacks.

[Ikari]

Christians aren't going to create violence about Jesus, because they are taught to be non-violent.

History does not quite take the same opinion.

 

[Harshaw]

Inflammatory videos go global.

OK, and . . . ?

 

[Carleen]

OK, and . . . ?

Its a downside to our technological advances IMO which is what I said in my original post.

 

[Harshaw]

Its a downside to our technological advances IMO which is what I said in my original post.

I understood that, but how does it figure into the topic of the thread?

 

[Gary]

History does not quite take the same opinion.

Right, and the Crusades never involved kings!

Have you examined all that **** about Crusades in context? I see evidence of asking for a Crusade after being attacked and the attack presently plaguing a major city, but where is the evidence that Christians actively ****ed with the Muslims?

 

[Ikari]

Right, and the Crusades never involved kings!

Have you examined all that **** about Crusades in context? I see evidence of asking for a Crusade after being attacked and the attack presently plaguing a major city, but where is the evidence that Christians actively ****ed with the Muslims?

I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of the various Crusades, except the one to abduct children...I don't know what that one was really about.

But Christianity has a long history of violence, not limited to the Crusades. They've warred against themselves and anyone else they could possibly hope to do. Led forth the Inquisitions, burned people for scientific discovery, etc. The Dark Ages were so Dark mostly because of Theocracy control and it wasn't until the yoke of theism was thrown off that we started to rebound. Christians being "peaceful", is more a modern evolution and due more with our rejection of theocracy. Secular government saves religion.

 

[Missed AB]

Right. White House pressure to remove a video doesn't have any free speech concerns. It doesn't have to be an out-and-out violation to be troubling.

I have a feeling you wouldn't feel the same about a president pressuring YouTube to remove something you feel strongly about.

The government is pressuring a company to remove a video. This company now must worry about ramifications of not obeying the government's request. Should it obey, then why not let the government pick and choose which videos are allowed to be on the internet? The point is that is is very innappropriate for the government to be involved in something that is clearly a matter of taste and opinion with regards to speech and freedoms of.

 

[iguanaman]

So, to justify censorship, iguanaman makes an extremely bigoted and hateful statement about the Muslim world.

Let all the implications of that sink in for a moment.

And you apparently think helping the muslim extremists is a cause to protect at all costs. Let that sink in.

 

[Harshaw]

And you apparently think helping the muslim extremists is a cause to protect at all costs. Let that sink in.

Another iguanaman post, another batch of drooling inanity.

 

[iguanaman]

So...if enough Christians had started violent reactions towards "piss Christ", then it would be ok to forbid the speech? Are all our rights subjected to mob rule, or just this one? Essentially if someone says something you don't like, the "legitimate" way to make them stop is to respond violently to the expression. If enough people react violently, then we can infringe upon the right.

I don't know, doesn't sound like the best of solutions to me.

We have people who don't understand freedom of anything being told by some evil people that the film is indicative of all Americans feelings about Islam. Aren't WE civilized enough to realize that other cultures may not understand what freedom of speech means? That some don't see a distinction between allowing things that are aborrent and endorsing their content? Should we be secure enough in our freedoms that we can make allowances for those that have none? Especially when it is our own best interests to do so? You don't like helping the extremists cause do you?

 

[lizzie]

Those disgusting displays did not cause deaths because they were directed at a different culture. Had they caused the violence that his film did I would have wanted them purged too.
We are dealing here with people with the minds of children who don't know any better and we should not be free to exploit and re-enforce their weakness. This kind of thing is also very helpful to our enemys in the muslim world, is that really what we want?

It would be illogical to make laws based on who it upsets, as this is not equal application of justice and legal codes.

 

[Ikari]

We have people who don't understand freedom of anything being told by some evil people that the film is indicative of all Americans feelings about Islam. Aren't WE civilized enough to realize that other cultures may not understand what freedom of speech means? That some don't see a distinction between allowing things that are aborrent and endorsing their content? Should we be secure enough in our freedoms that we can make allowances for those that have none?

My freedom is not up for sale. I will not accept infringement merely based upon the irrational reactions of others. You will always find some segment of the population to respond irrationally, and if lowest common denominator starts to triumph over our rights, we will find ourselves in a land with no freedom. People get insulted, people get offended, some people react irrationally; these are just consequences of freedom. I will certainly take the freedom over the faux "safety".

Should everyone be all nice and understanding and temper their tongue around certain folk? Yes, of course. And for the most part that will happen, but there will be some segment of the population who doesn't. Just because we realize full statistical distribution doesn't mean we need to start augmenting rights. We need to note the distribution, understand that this is merely the way the numbers are going to work out when the freedom is allowed, and know that free is not, has never been, and never will be safe. You cannot augment my rights because of the way this one guy acted on his and how irrational people reacted to that guy. No sir.

 

[iguanaman]

Another iguanaman post, another batch of drooling inanity.

So you deny that the film is helping the extremists cause?

 

[iguanaman]

My freedom is not up for sale. I will not accept infringement merely based upon the irrational reactions of others. You will always find some segment of the population to respond irrationally, and if lowest common denominator starts to triumph over our rights, we will find ourselves in a land with no freedom. People get insulted, people get offended, some people react irrationally; these are just consequences of freedom. I will certainly take the freedom over the faux "safety".

Should everyone be all nice and understanding and temper their tongue around certain folk? Yes, of course. And for the most part that will happen, but there will be some segment of the population who doesn't. Just because we realize full statistical distribution doesn't mean we need to start augmenting rights. We need to note the distribution, understand that this is merely the way the numbers are going to work out when the freedom is allowed, and know that free is not, has never been, and never will be safe. You cannot augment my rights because of the way this one guy acted on his and how irrational people reacted to that guy. No sir.

So as an American you can standly proudly behind the content and message in that film with no reservations? You do realize that that is exactly how much of the muslim world sees it. Is that the message we want to send them? I'm starting to think that is the case.

 

[lizzie]

So you deny that the film is helping the extremists cause?

It doesn't matter if it's helping their cause. We would be foolish to cede deference to them, based on their religious beliefs, as that is seen as a victory by them. You don't give your enemy cause to think you are weak- only a fool believes that he is strengthened by compromising on an ethical principle.

 

[Harshaw]

It doesn't matter if it's helping their cause. We would be foolish to cede deference to them, based on their religious beliefs, as that is seen as a victory by them. You don't give your enemy cause to think you are weak- only a fool believes that he is strengthened by compromising on an ethical principle.

Simple, obvious, yet beyond the grasp of some.

 

[iguanaman]

Simple, obvious, yet beyond the grasp of some.

I see now. It is all about weakness and insecurity. Typical Conservative paranoia. Too bad it's that fillm that makes us look weak in the extremists eyes. It's our achilles heel to them. They can use the tactic at any time they want and there is nothing we can do about it. And they will.

 

[lizzie]

I see now. It is all about weakness and insecurity. Typical Conservative paranoia. Too bad it's that fillm that makes us look weak in the extremists eyes. It's our achilles heel to them. They can use the tactic at any time they want and there is nothing we can do about it. And they will.

You don't seem to understand the issue. The weakness isn't our upholding freedom of speech. It's an apologetic attitude for upholding it, and a perceived waffling of our dedication to upholding our own values, regardless of what specific groups take offense to.

 

[Ikari]

So as an American you can standly proudly behind the content and message in that film with no reservations? You do realize that that is exactly how much of the muslim world sees it. Is that the message we want to send them? I'm starting to think that is the case.

No, I can be critical of the movie as much as I want. I can speak out against it, I can condemn it, I can not agree with it to my heart's content. But I can't stop it, that's what it comes down to. In a free society, people are free to run their mouths even if I disagree with what they are saying (some may even say particularly because I disagree with what they are saying). Some other people reacted irrationally to it, but that's not on the guy who made this video; it's an irrational response. Just because someone reacts irrationally doesn't mean we have legitimate call to government force against our exercise of rights. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with what was said; all that matters is that this is a free country.

 

[iguanaman]

You don't seem to understand the issue. The weakness isn't our upholding freedom of speech. It's an apologetic attitude for upholding it, and a perceived waffling of our dedication to upholding our own values, regardless of what specific groups take offense to.

You don't thnk of it is a weakness but others do and are capitalizing on that "weakness" as we speak to further their cause of hatred of America. But we only can stand by and sigh. That sounds like strength to you? Bush asked us to make compromises in our liberty to fight the terrorists and the Patriot act was the result. Did that make us weaker too or did it help us to fight against a very different and dangerous enemy like Bush claimed?

 

[Harshaw]

It's an apologetic attitude for upholding it, and a perceived waffling of our dedication to upholding our own values, regardless of what specific groups take offense to.

THAT's the actual "weakness." It's hilarious that someone who's talking about cowering in fear of an angry mob and punishing those the mob is angry AT is daring to accuse others of "weakness."

(And being exceptionally bigoted while doing it.)

 

[Harshaw]

So as an American you can standly proudly behind the content and message in that film with no reservations? You do realize that that is exactly how much of the muslim world sees it. Is that the message we want to send them? I'm starting to think that is the case.

What's "the case" is that you want to sacrifice American freedom for fear of what "the Muslim world" may think.

While at the same time saying that they, as a people, have child-like minds, as you did. Bad enough that you're that bigoted, but these are the people you want to tell Americans what to do with their freedoms.

 

[lizzie]

You don't thnk of it is a weakness but others do and are capitalizing on that "weakness" as we speak to further their cause of hatred of America. But we only can stand by and sigh. That sounds like strength to you? Bush asked us to make compromises in our liberty to fight the terrorists and the Patriot act was the result. Did that make us weaker too or did it help us to fight against a very different and dangerous enemy like Bush claimed?

The Patriot Act was a travesty imo, and I do not support it as a legitimate measure at increasing our security. I do not favor compromising on principles of freedom, just because someone may have hurt feelings or be offended. If we stand for freedom, then we stand for the same application of law across the board, not just for those which can be misunderstood or misused by individual groups.

 

[lizzie]

THAT's the actual "weakness." It's hilarious that someone who's talking about cowering in fear of an angry mob and punishing those the mob is angry AT is daring to accuse others of "weakness."

(And being exceptionally bigoted while doing it.)

Yes. The weakness is in our failure to consistently uphold our values. Or iow, compromise. In dealing with someone who wants to see your demise, you never compromise, as to do so, shows that you don't really believe in your own principles.

 

[Harshaw]

Yes. The weakness is in our failure to consistently uphold our values. Or iow, compromise. In dealing with someone who wants to see your demise, you never compromise, as to do so, shows that you don't really believe in your own principles.

igunaman is very much doing this. Though, to be fair, I guess he never did claim that free speech IS one of his principles.