Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the defending-free-speech dept.

Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was attacked on January 7th:

The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports. [...] Kushner, in an email to The Times, said she was withdrawing from the May 5 PEN gala because she was uncomfortable with Charlie Hebdo's "cultural intolerance" and promotion of "a kind of forced secular view." Those views, The Times added, were echoed by the other writers who pulled out of the event. Carey told The Times that PEN, in its decision, was going beyond its role of protecting freedom of expression." A hideous crime was committed, but was it a freedom-of-speech issue for PEN America to be self-righteous about?" he said in an email to the newspaper. Novelist Salman Rushdie, a past president of PEN who spent years in hiding because of a fatwa over his novel The Satanic Verses, criticized the writers for pulling out, saying while Carey and Ondaatje were old friends of his, they are "horribly wrong."

Glenn Greenwald has written about the controversy over at The Intercept, which is hosting letters and comments written by Deborah Eisenberg and Teju Cole. Greenwald notes:

Though the core documents are lengthy, this argument is really worth following because it highlights how ideals of free speech, and the Charlie Hebdo attack itself, were crassly exploited by governments around the world to promote all sorts of agendas having nothing to do with free expression. Indeed, some of the most repressive regimes on the planet sent officials to participate in the Paris “Free Speech” rally, and France itself began almost immediately arresting and prosecuting people for expressing unpopular, verboten political viewpoints and then undertaking a series of official censorship acts, including the blocking of websites disliked by its government. The French government perpetrated these acts of censorship, and continues to do so, with almost no objections from those who flamboyantly paraded around as free speech fanatics during Charlie Hebdo Week.

From Deborah Eisenberg's letter to PEN's Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, March 26, 2015:

I can hardly be alone in considering Charlie Hebdo's cartoons that satirize Islam to be not merely tasteless and brainless but brainlessly reckless as well. To a Muslim population in France that is already embattled, marginalized, impoverished, and victimized, in large part a devout population that clings to its religion for support, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons of the Prophet must be seen as intended to cause further humiliation and suffering.

Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not. And yet the staff apparently considered the context of their satire and its wide-ranging potential consequences to be insignificant, or even an inducement to redouble their efforts – as if it were of paramount importance to demonstrate the right to smoke a cigarette by dropping your lit match into a dry forest.

It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible. The point of protecting all kinds of expression is that neither you nor I get to determine what attitudes are acceptable – to ensure that expression cannot be subordinated to powerful interests. But does that mean that courage in expression is to be measured by its offensiveness?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:24PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:24PM (#176211)

    These people seem to be of the school of thought that freedom of expression should only be for expressions that agree with. Secular satirization is not even *approaching* "hate speech" or whatever these writers think is happening. People need to get it through their heads that people are not required to respect their religion, or religion in general.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:32PM

    by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:32PM (#176212)

    I should add that I think that the more offensive and frequent the satirization is Islam (specifically) is, the better. It needs to be realized that verbal "attacks" on your religion by non-believers should simply be ignored, not punished by death. Keep the number of offences low puts capital punishment for all offences within reach.

    Don't like what people say about your religion? Ignore it. Unless people are saying that people who worship a certain religion should be killed, they're doing nothing wrong.

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:44PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:44PM (#176219)
      The problem with your approach is that it has been used to keep groups of people down. I'm not saying I disagree with you in this specific case, but I think the point they're aiming for (if misguidedly) is that they don't want history to repeat itself.
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:54PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:54PM (#176223) Journal

        Shouldn't people that attack newspaper offices (even unpopular ones) with automatic weapons be "kept down"?

        Certainly, any moral high ground the groups previously had was surrendered the minute they started filling their Kalashnikov clips.
        Think carefully when you start justifying such nonsense.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:16PM

          by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:16PM (#176236)

          Think carefully when you start justifying such nonsense.

          Yeah I think you need to read my post again, this time a little more carefully. I didn't justify anything. I said their motivation, misguided in this context, was to prevent a lesson from being forgotten.

          --
          🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:26PM

            by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:26PM (#176240)

            An important lesson, but for the most part, an unrelated lesson.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by cwix on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM

            by cwix (873) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM (#176259)

            The only lesson we need to know here is they hold us to different standards that they hold themselves to.

            The feel they have the right to mock, threaten, kill anyone who does not believe in their religion, but then they demand that everyone else curtail their speech so they do not get offended.

            They have the right to choose to be offended. That does not give them the right to curtail my free speech rights though.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:30PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:30PM (#176268)

              > The only lesson we need to know here is they hold us to different standards that they hold themselves to.

              Who is 'they?'

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:45AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:45AM (#176354)

                > The only lesson we need to know here is they hold us to different standards that they hold themselves to.

                Who is 'they?'

                "They" are people who believe that the words written in the Koran, Sirah, and Hadiths are true, and obey them.

                The colloquial term for "they" is: Islamic fundamentalists.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:48AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:48AM (#176355)

                  > The colloquial term for "they" is: Islamic fundamentalists.

                  So, your premise is that only fundamentalists were insulted by Hebdo?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:00AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:00AM (#176361)

                    > The colloquial term for "they" is: Islamic fundamentalists.

                    So, your premise is that only fundamentalists were insulted by Hebdo?

                    No, I answered your question as to the in-context definition of "they". The behavior of the murderers of Charlie Hebdo staff and related victims were in harmony with the fundamentals of Islam as written in the Koran and Hadiths. Do you disagree? If you do disagree, do keep in mind the Islamic concept of abrogation [usc.edu] before quoting random passages from the Koran et al.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:38AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:38AM (#176382)

                      Ah, the abrogation canard.
                      Mentioning that and taqayiah are the way ya know you are talking to a dhimmi-wannabe.
                      Someone who's whole world view is predicated on mooslims being evil that he pines for a global caliphate just to prove that over a decade of drinking haterade was worth it. Sorry dude, that cancer you've built in your heart, you've wasted your life nurturing it.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:09AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:09AM (#176478)

                        Ah, the abrogation canard.

                        Considering the sacred texts of Islam (Koran, Hadiths) endorse and record historical usage of both abrogation [usc.edu] ("newer replaces older") and taquiyya [usc.edu] ("it is moral to lie to advance the cause of Islam"), I'll put more weight on what is verifiably written in Islam's own books than in a detail-free post by an AC who tries to dismissively wave away references to what doesn't fit within his viewpoint.

                        For more on abrogation in particular, interested readers can search for "Islam's satanic verses" to see what Islam's own writings have to say about the topic.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:34PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:34PM (#176273)
              The point is that same rationale can be used to keep a minority group down. The 'only lesson' you actually need to know is that you shouldn't go extreme either way.
              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37AM (#176381)

                You're still equating murder with satire and/or insult. An extreme in speech is not equivalent to an extreme in action taken to harm another human's body.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:45AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:45AM (#176429)

                  You're still equating murder with satire and/or insult.

                  No, I'm not. I'm saying that you're applying a broad stroke to a narrow scenario and that will result in unintended consequences.

                  An extreme in speech is not equivalent to an extreme in action taken to harm another human's body.

                  Taken to an extreme speech can unify one group against another. Just to be clear, we do not disagree on Charlie Hebdo's right to run the magazine cover it did. I am not defending the shooters. I'm pointing out that you don't fight one extreme with another. I'm not equating one to another, I'm reminding you that history repeats itself. It's a wise thing to consider, not an indication that I'm siding with the bad guy.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:20AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:20AM (#176481)

                    No, I'm not [still equating murder with satire and/or insult]. [...]

                    I'm pointing out that you don't fight one extreme with another.

                    By re-stating your main point, you still come across as equating murder with printing repugnant words on paper.

                    I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo and what little I've seen of the work published therein repulses me. While I do believe there is validity to the concept of "fighting words" in far-edge cases, can you produce any example of insult or degredation that would justify murder, and thus actually produce an example of how an extreme of murder can equal an extreme of speech?

                    "Unifying one group against another" is not the same as members of one group murdering people they don't like for things the victims wrote.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:05AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:05AM (#176495)

                      By re-stating your main point, you still come across as equating murder with printing repugnant words on paper.

                      I really don't see how you're finding that equivalence in my post. I'm sorry. As near as I can tell the misunderstanding is coming from you measuring this equation with only one circumstance instead of spreading it out amongst many.

                      "Unifying one group against another" is not the same as members of one group murdering people they don't like for things the victims wrote.

                      It doesn't have to be. If you go all-or-nothing with free speech you allow it to be used to oppress a group of people. The summary is explaining this way better than I am.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:09AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:09AM (#176529)

                        If you go all-or-nothing with free speech you allow it to be used to oppress a group of people. The summary is explaining this way better than I am.

                        Free people in a free society have no choice but to go "all in" on free speech as far as any governmental enforcement is concerned; the alternative is allowing government to kill people who say certain things, since all government power rests on lethal force.

                        The excerpt from Deborah Eisenberg's letter attempts to make the basic claim that Muslims aren't fully human in that they are not responsible for their own actions if "inflamed" or "mortified" by printed words or images. Basically, the summary attempts to paint Muslims as petulant sub-human children who are not responsible for their own actions. I reject that claim, as one of my fundamental premises is that each human is the exclusive owner his/her body (a more detailed description of an "unalienable right to life"). I could be wrong, of course, but if the summary's premise is actually correct, then an appropriate response could be to massacre the "less-than-human Muslims", since they as a group have proven to have dangerous individuals among them and yet cannot be individually held responsible for their actions - it would be the rough equivalent of putting down a rabid pet.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:36PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:36PM (#176747)

                          Free people in a free society have no choice but to go "all in" on free speech as far as any governmental enforcement is concerned...

                          This is not true. Even in a free society there are concepts of libel, slander, hate speech, incitement to riot, and of course the oft-discussed 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' cliche. We've already learned this lesson, you cannot go that extreme in either direction.

                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:57AM

                            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:57AM (#176908)

                            Libel and slander are private matters (non-criminal), and in civilized countries as well as the USA, truth is a defense. "Mohummad was a pedophile" is a statement of historical fact according to Islam's own books. Hate speech is a thoughtcrime, a concept that cannot exist in a free country. "Incitement to riot" claims that at least some individuals that are expected to be walking about unaccompanied in public are not responsible for their own actions - also a concept that cannot exist in a free country.

                            Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is only a problem if there is known to be no fire. Even in the case of lies intended to harm, lying about a fire in a theater still rests upon the concept that humans aren't responsible for their own actions, as the supposed problem with such a lie is that it would "cause" other people to trample each other in a blind panic. It is also worthwhile to note that this principle originated from the same Supreme Court that ruled that black people aren't human (Dred Scott) and that grain grown and used entirely intra-state is somehow inter-state commerce (Wickard vs Filburn).

                            Is the USA a free country? De facto, no, it is a slave nation ruled by naked force. De jure, of course, it is a free nation, albeit one with public offices almost entirely populated by literal criminals.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:19PM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:19PM (#177309)

                              Libel and slander are private matters (non-criminal), and in civilized countries as well as the USA, truth is a defense.

                              Correct, but "Freedom of Speech" is not a rebuttal to that defense.

                              Hate speech is a thoughtcrime, a concept that cannot exist in a free country.

                              Untrue. Hate Speech is the dark side of Free Speech. As you've proven with this point and your point about the fire in the theater, speech has power. This is why you can't wield it to an extreme. In fact your first example eloquently illustrates why, albeit unintentionally.

                              • (Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday May 01 2015, @08:44AM

                                by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Friday May 01 2015, @08:44AM (#177400) Journal

                                Untrue. Hate Speech is the dark side of Free Speech. [...] speech has power. This is why you can't wield it to an extreme

                                Your assertion is attempting to conflate one person's speech with the actions of listeners, and that claim is something I've already addressed [soylentnews.org] in my previous comment.

                                In a free country, speech power of unlimited magnitude can indeed be wielded to any extreme. The avenues of address for free people (a free man exclusively owns his body) includes the choice to ignore, use speech in response, and cease association with the speaker and/or the speaker's supporters. If violence is an acceptable response to speech in society, then that society is not free; even my own edge cases involve the crime of assault along with "gonna kill yer wife 'n kids" speech. Violence is what is being called for when governments impose limits on speech.

                                Now, if your argument comes exclusively from the view inside of a non-free society (or even from the observation that all countries are de facto non-free), I could agree with you from that viewpoint alone. After all, in a slave country, the slave population usually has no choice but to abide by whatever the masters want, without limitation. However, that viewpoint does raise some other critically serious issues about countries that only have lawful authority to be free countries and yet have government offices populated with criminals, ala the USA. (Sorry, I can't speak for France.)

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @04:45PM

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @04:45PM (#177507)
                                  Where exactly is a free-society on Earth today?
                                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @06:19PM

                                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @06:19PM (#177551)

                                    Where exactly is a free-society on Earth today?

                                    By law, such a free country exists in the form of the United States of America. Its government was created at the Philadelphia Convention, by delegates that had been given authority by voters. Since the authority of the individual does not justly increase its ability to trespass on the unalienable rights of others merely by increasing numbers, it is therefore true that the entire authority of US government cannot exceed that of a single American citizen.

                                    US governments require law to exist; they were called into existence by the creation of their founding laws, and without them they cannot exist. When government overreach occurs in the USA, as it often does, such acts are literally criminal.

                                    True, the USA isn't directly involved with the murders at Charlie Hebdo. However, restrictions on speech imposed within a non-free country cannot be imposed on a free country - by definition.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @06:31PM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @06:31PM (#177558)

                                      However, restrictions on speech imposed within a non-free country cannot be imposed on a free country - by definition.

                                      There are restrictions to free speech that are there to maintain its integrity. By your own extreme interpretation it is impossible to achieve a free country.

                                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @07:49PM

                                        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @07:49PM (#177582)

                                        There are restrictions to free speech that are there to maintain its integrity

                                        My claim is that among free people there is no example of speech alone that can excuse the speaker's death at the hands of a listener. Feel free to provide an example which contradicts my claim. Governments that impose restrictions on speech do so with the threat of force, and thus cannot be governments of free people.

                                        By your own extreme interpretation it is impossible to achieve a free country

                                        You'll have to explain your assertion in more detail, as I am not understanding your claim here. Difficult, I could agree with, as it would require mass awareness and acceptance that each individual is the exclusive owner of his/her body, and that no other individual nor no government based on the delegated consent of such individuals has authority to violate that exclusive ownership. I cannot agree that such an achievement is impossible, especially in light of the particulars of the creation of just such a nation (as far as its laws are concerned): the USA. It may help to understand that even the USA's Supreme Court has acknowledged multiple times that a law which violates a more fundamental law has the same legal status as a law which was never passed in the first place; see Norton vs Shelby County [findlaw.com] and the opinion in Marbury vs Madison [umkc.edu] . The observation that such principles are routinely ignored does not change the legal facts.

                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:57PM

                                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:57PM (#177611)

                                          My claim is that among free people there is no example of speech alone that can excuse the speaker's death at the hands of a listener.

                                          I never made that argument.

                                          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:29PM

                                            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:29PM (#177625)

                                            I never wrote that you did make that exact claim. Still, perhaps I should have asked for an example of speech alone that can excuse the speaker's death at the hands of anyone. Do you have one you'd like to share with me?

                                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:34PM

                                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:34PM (#177629)
                                              We don't disagree on that point so, no, I don't.
                                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:45AM

                                                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:45AM (#177770)

                                                We don't disagree on that point [that speech alone cannot excuse the speaker's death at the hands of anyone] so, no, I don't.

                                                No problem; let me then build on that point.

                                                Decrees, orders, rules, laws, etc. issued from a government are ultimately enforced with lethal violence. (Break even a trivial unjust law, and a citiation is issued; ignore the citation, and a fine is imposed; ignore the fine, and a court summons is issued; ignore the court summons, and a warrant for arrest is issued; ignore the warrant, and enforcers seek to find you and put you in a cage; ignore the enforcers demands, and the enforcers assault you; overcome the initial assault, and the enforcers try to kill you.) Because of this, a government's restriction on speech is equivalent to a statement of "that government will kill you if you say something it doesn't like".

                                                I view violence as a perfectly acceptable tool when it is used in defense of one's property, chiefly one's own body. Governments of free people have been delegated authority to use that same violence on behalf of free people, to exercise in the same circumstances that a free person could. Thus, governments that enforce laws against murder, kidnapping, rape, robbery, theft, and fraud are doing so in a manner compatible with people who already have the authority to use lethal violence in response to such crimes, and have chosen to delegate that authority to a government in the interests of better securing their right to not have their body killed, stolen, violated, etc.

                                                Thus, when agents of government attempt to impose restrictions on the speech of free people, such agents literally become criminals by exceeding their authority, just as a mugger exceeds his authority when he tries to steal money from his victim at knifepoint.

                                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:58PM

                                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:58PM (#178174)

                                    Nowhere, because no country is without flaws. There exist serious problems that must be fixed in every single country in the world.

                            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:56PM

                              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:56PM (#178172)

                              Libel and slander are private matters (non-criminal)

                              Private matters that just so happen to involve the government enforcing the court decisions. Make no mistake, if someone can sue you and win and have the government enforce the court decision because you said something, your freedom of speech has been limited.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:05PM (#176251)

          > Shouldn't people that attack newspaper offices (even unpopular ones) with automatic weapons be "kept down"?

          Lets restate that in another context to see how sensible it is.

          If some black panthers murdered David Duke and some black people said "good, he had it coming" does that mean Duke's writing are now deserving of praise?

          There are at least two different things going on here - people being murdered and and praising those people for being assholes. Conflating the two is a good way to end up shitting on an unrelated third party.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:57PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:57PM (#176226)

      > Don't like what people say about your religion? Ignore it. ...they're doing nothing wrong.

      I agree with you. That being said, that's akin to what the writers are doing here. They don't like something, and are choosing to not participate.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:51PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:51PM (#176246)

      The problem is that the religionists (namely the Muslims) are actually saying that those who insult their religion should be killed.

      If people who follow a certain religion can't help but resort to violence when their religion is insulted, then maybe those people don't belong in civilized society, and should be removed from it, forcibly if necessary.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:12PM (#176254)

        > If people who follow a certain religion can't help but resort to violence when their religion is insulted,

        If that actually happened with any frequency it would be genocide. People insult islam all the time, day in and day out. That there have been only a handful of high-profile cases of violent retaliation ought to be proof that it isn't much of a problem. 100x more innocent people have been died due to 'collateral damage' from american drone strikes, that doesn't make every american uncivilized.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:42AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:42AM (#176485)

          People insult islam all the time, day in and day out.

          I know I do, but I am only an innocent AC. Maybe I don't know any better, but then again, maybe I do?

      • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:29PM

        by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:29PM (#176266) Journal

        Oh don't lean on me man, cause you can't afford the ticket - I'm back from Elohim city.
        Oh, don't lean on me man 'cos you ain't got time to check it - back from Elohim City...

        --
        You're betting on the pantomime horse...
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:54AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:54AM (#176359)

        If people who follow a certain religion can't help but resort to violence when their religion is insulted, then maybe those people don't belong in civilized society, and should be removed from it, forcibly if necessary.

        Hhhm. Vox ran some of the most insulting covers from Hebdo. [vox.com]
        They got zero threats from muslims.
        They got tons of threats from people who share your views. [vox.com]
        Perhaps you should be forcibly removed from civilized society.

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:31PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:31PM (#176269) Journal

      Keep the number of offences low puts capital punishment for all offences within reach.

      What does this mean?

      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:55PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:55PM (#176280)

        Sorry, should be "keeping". It means that if there are only a handful of insults world wide, they draw sharp spikes of attention and the relatively low number of religiously impaired people can personally attend to these heretics. If there is a vast wave of insults they realize that they should just probably ignore them. Of course they could just kill people randomly, which in many cases is what's happening anyway.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:20PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:20PM (#176289)

          Why do you feel the urge to insult people on a massive level?

          Where do you draw the line with insults? Do you go to some random person and call their mother a whore, or are you against personal attacks?

          If you feel the need to insult someone, go insult your neighborhood blacks/mexicans/russians/italians/eastern europeans, and then deal with the consequences.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:36PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:36PM (#176295)

            Why do muslims feel the need to kill anyone who does not agree with them.

            Lets fix that issue and then we can talk about my sin of stereotyping.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:54AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:54AM (#176358)

            Why do you feel the urge to insult people on a massive level?

            The term "insult" is used within the same Koranic context as rejecting Islam as a true religion. One related segment that comes to mind is one that claims "persecution (of Islam) is worse than slaughter (of Islam)", found in Koran 2:190-193 [usc.edu].

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:31PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:31PM (#176293) Journal

    These people seem to be of the school of thought that freedom of expression should only be for expressions that agree with.

    On the other extreme, there are people which think freedom of expression is the freedom to knowingly offend.
    (I think there was something good in the Dark Ages idea of a duel over "honour matters")

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:05AM

      by M. Baranczak (1673) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:05AM (#176341)

      On the other extreme, there are people which think freedom of expression is the freedom to knowingly offend.

      Well, I'm one of those people. And I think that's a pretty reasonable position.

      I think there was something good in the Dark Ages idea of a duel over "honour matters"

      A duel doesn't determine who's right, it just determines who's better at dueling.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:27AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:27AM (#176375) Journal

        I think there was something good in the Dark Ages idea of a duel over "honour matters"

        A duel doesn't determine who's right, it just determines who's better at dueling.

        In my view, the purpose of the duel is not to determine who is right or wrong (if you get there, reasoning is already a thing of the past), but to raise the potential cost of a reckless behaviour when it comes to offending someone.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:00AM (#176400)

          Then why do you argue and offend others here from time to time? Would you be willing to risk death every time you disagree with someone and say so?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:25AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:25AM (#176423) Journal

            Then why do you argue and offend others here from time to time?

            Because that's how I imagine life should be.

            Would you be willing to risk death every time you disagree with someone and say so?

            As long as I receive a warning of "Say it again and I'll challenge you to a duel", yes.
            If I remember the "western" type movies (and if they are to be believed), there used to be a "You call me a liar?" type of warning, even during the Wild West times. Are we more civilized now?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:28AM

              by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:28AM (#176482) Journal

              ... there used to be a "You call me a liar?" type of warning, even during the Wild West times. Are we more civilized now?

              Consider that many Americans today still remember the names of the "good" and "bad" guys involved in many of the Wild West crimes, and contrast it to the fact that today there are so many crimes of murder, robbery, and assault committed across the United States that such events don't even make the news unless there's an element to the crime that's even more horrific (i.e., more horrific than murder).

              I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that, for the Average Joe, life in the USA was much more civilized in the "Wild" West.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:16PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:16PM (#176697)

          Until you get assholes who are good at dueling, who have no real reason not to go around pissing in people's Cheerios.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:28AM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:28AM (#176347)

      That actually is part of it. I have the right to knowingly offend, and on occasion, when I think it's deserved, I will use it. Others have the same right. We do *not* have the right not to be offended.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:23AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:23AM (#176372) Journal

        That actually is part of it. I have the right to knowingly offend, and on occasion, when I think it's deserved, I will use it.

        I don't contest this. All I'm saying with every freedom comes at least one responsibility for the result of your actions. E.g. ideally, offending someone on purpose should be rare. In my opinion, even offending someone unknowingly should be subject to a recklessness kind of check (even if the check is self-imposed or learnt by what's called "civilized manners").

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:03AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:03AM (#176402)

          Well that says nothing without fleshing out what the responsibility entails. Being expected to feel bad or apologize is no significant responsibility at all. While a responsibility that ends with your beheading is entirely different. We are talking about people that prefer the latter outcome.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:19AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:19AM (#176415) Journal

            We are talking about people that prefer the latter outcome.

            You are free to talk about whoever you want.

            Well that says nothing without fleshing out what the responsibility entails.

            And why should I? I'm only pointing the fact that there needs to be a responsibility in exercising a right and let the details for the ones who wish to exercise that freedom, on a case by case basis.

            Because I don't see how asserting general rules on how to do (or not to do it) can work.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:34AM

            by Fauxlosopher (4804) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:34AM (#176483) Journal

            While a responsibility that ends with your beheading is entirely different

            Err, each individual is responsible for his/her own actions only.

            Repugnant speech is by no means equivalent to murder; the former cannot be used to justify the latter.

            "But he made me do it!" stopped working for civilized humanity at about the same time as they learned not to poop in their own pants.

        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:29AM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:29AM (#176424)

          My responsibility for this freedom is ensuring that others have it as well, not to ensure that I don't offend someone. Opinion, criticism, and insult are all variations on the same thing. You can place a statement anywhere you want on that scale but it is expression all the same and you shouldn't have to worry about being killed for expressing it.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:14AM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:14AM (#176439) Journal

            My responsibility for this freedom is ensuring that others have it as well,

            This responsibility goes for any freedom, it's not specific for the freedom of speech. But... from one freedom to another, this may not be the only responsibility applicable to a specific freedom (strings may be attached to the other specific freedoms for those freedom to work in practice).

            you shouldn't have to worry about being killed for expressing it.

            I tend to agree with you over "worry about being killed" (didn't quite made my mind in regards with the degree of applicability, if I'll ever, but until now I haven't stumbled on any speech/expression that would warrant killing).
            But this does say nothing about other (types of) worries. What else you'd like to not be worried about?

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:06PM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:06PM (#178177)

          In my opinion, even offending someone unknowingly should be subject to a recklessness kind of check (even if the check is self-imposed or learnt by what's called "civilized manners").

          Then you are advocating that others infringe upon people's rights. If you beat someone up because you're offended, you are a barbarian who needs to be put in jail. It doesn't even matter if they intentionally offend you; grow a thicker skin.

    • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:02PM

      by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:02PM (#178175)

      On the other extreme, there are people which think freedom of expression is the freedom to knowingly offend.

      I would hardly call that extreme. It's just a simple truth. If you don't like it, don't listen/watch and go elsewhere. Even if you can't avoid it, you should grow thicker skin.