Six writers have withdrawn from the PEN American Center's annual gala in protest over the organization's decision to give its Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the French satirical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The writers who have withdrawn from the event are Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi, The New York Times reports.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?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:15PM
SJW drama/bs.
Consider carefully before modding as flamebait. TFS + article should be modded as offtopic.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:55PM
Even though using the term "SJW" to label people you disagree with is an instant sign of stupidity, you're right.
There's nothing noble about withdrawing from a free speech conference because you disagree with the winners. It's just plain dumb. You never endorsed free speech in the first place, and the organization is better of without you.
Free speech means shitty speech. Poorly considered speech. Cruel speech. Inane speech. *gasp* secular speech. Religious speech. These people didn't understand what organization they were members of.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:22PM
Even though using the term "SJW" to label people you disagree with is an instant sign of stupidity, you're right.
No, it's not. It depends on whether the label fits. There is a large contingent of people who have elevated getting easily offended to a matter of principle. SJW is a useful term to describe members of that group. If you're using the word correctly -- as OP was -- it means you are able to effectively use new language to concisely communicate your ideas.
On the other hand, if you're using it wrong, then, yeah, it's stupid. Same as using "sexist", "racist", "homophobic", "The Patriarchy", and like shit for random crap you don't like but that has nothing to do with the actual accepted definitions of those words. Or, for "THE PATRIARCHY", for really anything at all.
(Score: 4, Funny) by dyingtolive on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:24PM
Did you just 'mansplain' it to him?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:26PM
That's not what the term meant. It meant someone who used the ideals of social justice as a bludgeon to demand that their personal preferences in conversation are adhered to.
Things like playing oppression olympics where you try to pretend your group X is more oppressed than other group Y because of reason Z. Or things like saying that opinions "trigger" you, without any bearing or familiarity with actual PTSD and how it works, and how it causes people in the real world to suffer. Shallow understandings of important things used for selfish ends. That's where the "warrior" part came from.
That's not the same as being offended at shitty behavior. You're allowed to call a gross fucking bigot exactly that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:35PM
Correct. People using the term need to distinguish "SJW" from "cat lady". The latter is a fairly benign, harmless creature that shrieks at the top of its lungs about some trivial SWPL issue, such as the perceived racism presented by white men after their colleagues were killed by Islamic extremists. I know that creature is the courageous one; the one who will receive nothing but social praise from its circle.
A "SJW" is a recursive "cat lady".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:37AM
You're allowed to call a gross fucking bigot exactly that.
Exactly. You are allowed to respond to speech with more speech. But if you actually support free speech, the second somebody calls to force the 'fucking bigot' to shut up you are required to jump to their defense with "I hate that guy but I will defend his right to be an offensive bastard with my last breath.... and box of ammo if required. So if you can stop with the censoring crap we can both get back to denouncing and perhaps even shunning the bastard, K?"
I speak of it as Freedom Zero, the one the that implies all of the others: The Right to Be Wrong. As in I think you are wrong but you have the right to be wrong. If you can't say that you really haven't internalized the whole Freedom thing yet. You have the right to think the wrong things, you have the right to say the wrong things and within as broad a limit as compatible with a Civilization of Free Men, you have the right to do the wrong things. I believe you have that Right to be Wrong because I do not want to empower some tribunal to decide who is 'wrong' since it is a certainty that it will eventually decide I too am Wrong on some issue. No, no Western Civilization has yet fully realized that level of Freedom but it should be the star we guide our policy by.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:58AM
You have the right to think the wrong things, you have the right to say the wrong things and within as broad a limit as compatible with a Civilization of Free Men, you have the right to do the wrong things. I believe you have that Right to be Wrong because I do not want to empower some tribunal to decide who is 'wrong' since it is a certainty that it will eventually decide I too am Wrong on some issue. No, no Western Civilization has yet fully realized that level of Freedom but it should be the star we guide our policy by.
Maybe if we got rid of human beings and replaced them with some superior beings we could realize that level of freedom. Until then, we will have to accept that we need laws imposed by whatever society of which we are a part in order to continue as a just and civil society. We might have to invent another term, Libertarian Justice Warrior (LJW), for those who are having hissy fits whenever "SJW's" come down on them for their bigotry or whenever they get offended by society's disapproval of their position.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:04AM
Libertarians ... bigoted? I've never heard of or witnessed that. Libertarians seem to be people with a coherent philosophy that unfortunately is premised on some wrong ideas (like markets being perfect, governments being the root of all evil, etc.). That leads to some strange positions that, taken alone, can misrepresent what they're about. For example, they'd probably disagree with the Civil Rights Act, but not because they're bigots: they just don't like government telling anyone what to do ever, for any reason, except for directly preventing physical violence.
They're also usually strongly in favor of drug legalization, but not necessarily because they think drugs are not harmful. They just think that people should have the freedom to hurt themselves without restriction. They also think said people should then suffer the consequences of their actions up to and including dying in the streets since they spent all their money on heroin and now can't afford medical care. Consistent, not bigoted or anything, but ... just ... wrong, at least for utilitarians (of which I am one).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:05AM
I speak of it as Freedom Zero, the one the that implies all of the others: The Right to Be Wrong, the right to pass the cobblestones and shout "Queer" in the company of homophobes, the right to point and shout "Jew" in front of a pack of neoNazis, the Right to Shout "Fire" in a crowded Theatre, the right to bully the weak, to subjugate, to gaslight, to mentally destroy.
FTFY.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:08PM
There is a large contingent of people who have elevated getting easily offended to a matter of principle. SJW is a useful term to describe members of that group.
Or, you know, people who don't hate SystemD enough.
(see yesterday's Linux thread for examples)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Marand on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:42AM
Or, you know, people who don't hate SystemD enough.
(see yesterday's Linux thread for examples)
That's a fellow that goes by MikeeUSA online. He's a deranged jackass with a boatload of issues and an agenda against Debian. He also has a massive hatred for women for some reason, so any discussion he inserts himself into invariably trends toward ranting against women and labeling anybody that disagrees with him "feminist" or "SJW" or something similar. He's been around for 10+ years doing this shit, I think, though I only learned about him in the past year or so thanks to his appearance on SN. He leaves a highly identifiable trail of word-vomit online, so it's not difficult to get an idea of what dealing with him is like.
[Anyone easily offended by words should probably skip this next paragraph, I'm not one to self-censor]
Imagine a hypothetical version of APK that scours the web for mentions of host files, and whenever he finds one, he tells everyone how they could just use a hosts file to solve all their problems. (Okay, that part isn't any different than the real thing.) Except this hypothetical evil APK is crazier than normal and, in every discussion, blames "niggers and jews" for every problem in every discussion that mentions /etc/hosts. And, once he joins a topic, he sticks around for days replying to everybody, fighting all and sundry and accusing them of being "nigger lovers" or "kikes" because they called him out on being insane or stupid. That's MikeeUSA, except with Mikee, he hates women and Debian, so every discussion ends up with him blaming them for all problems ever and accusing everybody of being SJWs.
He's been doing this stuff long before systemd existed existed, and his diatribes and harassment also predate the SJW moniker. He just uses whatever tool is convenient to further his own insane agenda. The only reason he's anti-systemd is because Debian's adopting it and a portion of the Linux community dislikes it, and he picked up "SJW" because it's a polarising label. They're both just fuel for his lunatic crusade against Debian at this point. I've seen him on Slashdot doing the same shit, and unfortunately for us, he found SN and apparently decided its smaller size and greybeard anti-systemd leaning makes it easier to spread his insane bullshit.
His writing style is easy enough to pinpoint once you know it, since it tends to carry an unhinged zealotry that stands out. Ignoring him is simple, but the problem is he manages to discredit people with useful commentary and insightful opinions simply by claiming to be on their side while waging his personal war that nobody else is involved in. As soon as he uses someone else's cause to further his own lunatic agenda, people seeking to discredit that cause will use him as an example of why that cause is wrong. He's like a living example of how false flag operations can discredit a movement, except that he seems to really just be a deranged nutter with a keyboard that manages to achieve similar results.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:42PM
That's a fellow that goes by MikeeUSA online.
I wonder if he is the one who keeps modding me down (a day later) for calling it out.
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:08AM
I would hope that MikeeUSA does not have high enough karma to ever get mod points...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tork on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:18PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:34PM
0 Disagree
-1 Overrated
That looks like a bug.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:16PM
No, it's not a bug. The "Disagree" mod is +0, not -1.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:52PM
The "bug" is that we aren't allowed to use Overrated or Underrated unless the comment has already been moderated, but Disagree does not change the score. It doesn't make sense to allow Overrated/Underrated if only Disagree has been used.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:01AM
That's sad, I thought Disagree was +1 for some reason. There should be a "I think this post is wrong, but it also adds to the discussion and should be seen more" mod.
(Score: 4, Informative) by linuxrocks123 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:17AM
My interpretation of "Disagree" is it's encouraging would-be unintentional mod abusers to see their feelings more clearly. Like, a comment pisses you off, and you have mod points, so you click the drop-down list to select "Troll" or "Flamebait" or whatever, and you realize that "Disagree" actually fits better, and your better nature takes over, and you either mod it "disagree" or just back off and continue reading the rest of the discussion.
It's served that role for me a few times. Mind you, I would never intentionally abuse mod points. I thought a post was actually flamebait or whatever, but then after seeing the "disagree" mod in the list, I realized that, no, I just really, really disagreed with how stupid it was and my disagreement with said stupidity was pissing me off. Without the disagree mod available, I may have picked a -1 mod, without the benefit of that additional reflection. With the disagree mod, I either selected it or posted a response and not modded at all.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:56AM
I mod up idiot posts (by non-ACs)
So everyone else can see how much of an idiot the author is.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:59PM
Free speech means shitty speech. Poorly considered speech. Cruel speech. Inane speech. *gasp* secular speech. Religious speech. These people didn't understand what organization they were members of.
One thing free speech does not mean is endorsing shitty, poor, cruel, inane, secular or any other type of speech. Your twisted logic would have them be forced to endorse speech that they vehemently disagree with -- that's the opposite of free speech. Free speech means the right to make opposing speech and that's exactly what these people are doing by withdrawing their support. Nobody in this story is stopping Hebdo from saying a thing. They just aren't willing to praise them for it.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:05PM
In what way does acknowledging the suppressed speech of others with an award endorse it?
Clarify that. You are letting it stand as a bare assertion right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM
In what world is an award not an endorsement?
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:46PM
Because it specifically celebrates the freedom to express the opinion.
There. Hope that solves your conundrum.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:08PM
The idea that an award for speech ignores the content of that speech is head in the sand denialism. Especially since this award seems to have been specifically created for Hebdo. There was no such award in 2014, only a Goodale Digital Freedom Award [pen.org] that went to Twitter for enabling others to speak.
If you think blindered literalism is all that matters in analysing a situation then you are guaranteed to come to an erroneous conclusion. Kind of like concluding that the DPRK is a democratic republic, that Russia's anti-gay laws are about protecting children and the Defense of Marriage Act was about defending anybody.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:40PM
Agreed. It doesn't take any courage to say the popular thing.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:54PM
Which is why Charlie Hebdo *didn't* deserve this award, right? I mean, if they were publishing in Saudi Arabia or something, sure. But harassing Muslims in a country which has already legally prohibited them from practicing their faith in public? And doing so while receiving massive outpourings of support from numerous world leaders? While receiving millions of dollars in donations? With millions of citizens marching to support you? Publishing that cartoon didn't take much courage. The right to publish it was never in question.
The award isn't being given to them because of their speech; it's being given to them because of someone else's act of terrorism.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:51PM
Given what happened, you may be underestimating the risk.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Thursday April 30 2015, @12:09PM
Yeah, there was some risk. There's some risk to anything. But the risk Charlie Hebdo took was nothing compared even to someone like Edward Snowden. And it certainly doesn't even begin to compare to a reporter covering corruption and abuses in some third-world dictatorship. What Charlie Hebdo did is nothing compared to the journalists publishing where their own government and even their own neighbors want them dead. Charlie Hebdo's staff isn't still being hunted. They aren't in prison. They weren't forced to flee the country. Publishing that took about as much courage as your average gas station attendant or bank teller.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday April 30 2015, @06:30PM
Agreed Snowden took a bigger risk and has paid a substantial price, but he is not a writer or a publisher. He is deserving of many awards and accolades nevertheless.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:01PM
To me, an SJW is a lazy insufferable shit who will preach down to you if you say anything off color. They harbor guilt and lack self esteem. So to make up for that, they have to feel superior to others by talking down to them about social issues.
Anecdotal poster boy SJW:
My brother and his girlfriend rented a room with mutual friends. The friends were a couple, the male was a woman's study major or something of the sort. So all he did was spend most of his time arguing of forums about patriarchy, how marriage is wrong, feminism etc. Meanwhile he talked down to his own girlfriend, even calling her ugly to her face. My brother hated him with a passion as anything mildly sexist would make that douche start preaching. And by sexist I mean holding the door for his girlfriend. Why? Because that is displaying patriarchal behaviour as he was telling his girlfriend she is weaker and can't open the door for herself. That SJW douche would let the door slam in his girlfriends face and other peoples faces. Seriously. When they moved out he almost punched the guy out after he and his girlfriend were struggling trying to get large boxes through the door and Mr. SJW walked right past them and didn't even bother to hold the door for them. He was just a piece of shit. And that, is a real SJW. A phony douche who doesn't practice what they preach. They just preach to feel better about themselves, not to improve society.
(Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:26PM
Yes, it means such speech must be permitted. It doesn't mean that such speech must be honored and awarded.
They're allowing the speech to occur, but they're also raising their own voices to say they disagree with that speech. This too is part of the right to free speech and free expression. By attending the event you endorse the event and you help fund the organization behind it. If you disagree with that organization's decision, why would you continue to support it? I'm not sure I'd say it's "noble" either, but it's certainly logical...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:28PM
It says something about the responsibility you should feel in exercising free speech (as it's the case with any other freedom).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:21PM
Why?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:24PM
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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:32PM
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
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:54PM
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
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
An important lesson, but for the most part, an unrelated lesson.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cwix on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM
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
> 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
"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
> 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
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
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
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
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:37AM
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
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 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 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
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
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
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
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
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @06:19PM
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
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
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.
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
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
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @04:45AM
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
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
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
> 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
> 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
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
> 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
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
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
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
Keep the number of offences low puts capital punishment for all offences within reach.
What does this mean?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:55PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Because that's how I imagine life should be.
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
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
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
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
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
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
You are free to talk about whoever you want.
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:34PM
Was it the primary purpose of the magazine to mortify and inflame a marginalized demographic? It would seem not.
"It would seem not" ... why? By the looks of it, the magazine specializes on inflaming demographics. Some of them would be marginalized ones. Perhaps one could claim that a decade ago the magazine was more reasonable and sometimes had a useful message. I saw a collection of pictures from the magazine collected over the years. The pictures were getting more aggressive, and the message was getting weaker over time - if present at all. It's much easier to draw dumb, offensive pictures than to creatively laugh at flaws of the society.
It is difficult and painful to support the protection of offensive expression, but it is necessary; freedom of expression must be indivisible.
I take it that Deborah Eisenberg doesn't mind if everyone starts mooning her and her family, because that's freedom of expression that must be indivisible. Or, at least, she'd be OK if crowds of people beat the drums under windows of her house 24/7. Or... will she call police, were that to happen?
Can freedom of expression be absolute? Yes. There is no genetic mechanism that would stop a human from saying certain words. However the freedom of expression has to come together with freedom of other people to express displeasure with your expression. The speaker is not above the listeners.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:21PM
Adding to that, an individual's right ends where the right of another begins.
While I absolutely condemn the killing, I have a similar opinion about the unnecessary provocation of the publication and associated media-hype about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:28PM
As some people have said, the role of satire is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.
Insulting the ayatollah, members of ISIS or any other person using religion for their own selfish ends absolutely qualifies, kicking the weakest among us does not.
It would be like saying black people in America need to stop going to black churches and forming other black community groups because Sharpton exploits the black experience for his own purposes.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:18PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give. They have already been given vast amounts of respect, its their turn to pony up.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:43PM
the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered
[Citation needed]
Go spread your hate-speech somewhere else, please.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:05PM
There is no hate speech there, just truths. I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
Citation needed?
How about Pew research?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:16PM
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.
Thanks. Any actual citation, or are you going to come up with Fox next?
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
I don't care if they hurt you, they are the truth.
I don't care if you think you have a monopoly on truth, because you don't.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:59PM
If this is not hate speech? I don't know what is.
That particular sentence is about as much "hate speech" as saying the Christian god is a murderous thug (which he is); that is, it isn't. It's just criticizing a religion and the prophets they worship.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:17AM
You mistake criticism for insult.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:28AM
Err... the other way around, of course. It's late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:06AM
He was a proper pedophile. That is not even an insult or criticism, but a fact of scripture.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:54AM
You're limiting the options. It could be:
1) An insult.
2) A criticism.
3) A simple statement of fact.
4) Some combination of these things.
I see no reason to limit the options to two things. Simply stating that their prophet is a pedophile is not necessarily an insult, or only an insult.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:26PM
Is there someone here that is Islamic and modding everything down involving the prophet? On a free speech article no less.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:08AM
Would you prefer to see the real deal on liveleak? How about apacheclips? We don't need words. They film it and post it for us.
Those things are nasty enough that nobody should be subjected to seeing them. If you want, you can find them yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:24PM
Wait a second. Someone asks for a link showing Islamic extremists denouncing free speech with death in their own words. I post two sources to find such, and get modded -1 offtopic.
Then what the hell was the topic? To be apologists and pretend people aren't beheaded, burned alive, stoned to death, and worse all on film with explanation by militant Muslims? Such a waste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:53AM
Some people can't handle ugly truths and their behavior to avoid facing such ugliness can seem irrational to an observer.
Feel free to post a link to the affected comment in question next time so modders with points can look it over for themselves - the threads here are getting quite tangled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:47AM
> There is your citation. From their own mouths they think killing is called for by sharia law.
No, from their own mouths they think killing traitors is called for by sharia law.
Want to bet most Americans think the same thing about traitors too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @08:56AM
Your comparison is misleading.
An apostate from Islam is the equivalent of an American expatriate. I'd win a bet that most Americans don't want to see American expatriates killed.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:45PM
When muslims stop killing anyone who doesn't believe the same things as them then I may have pity for them being mocked. As of right now the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered.
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
So fuck their pedo prophet, and anything else that they care about.
You are welcome to do exactly that in privacy of your own bedroom. Doing it on TV or in newspapers would be, IMO, foolish. It will gain you nothing, but will create enemies. Go ahead, visit Saudi Arabia, go to a mosque and tell the assembled people what you really think about them and their false god. You'll meet a man with a rare job and a sharp friend the very next Friday.
They can start demanding the rest of the world treat them as equals when they treat the rest of the world as equals. Its that whole you gotta give respect if you want respect principle, and I refuse to be the first to give.
It's difficult to identify who hit who first, especially when first such conflict happened twelve centuries ago. But do you recall events that led to the Muslim unrest in the 20th century?
With regard to respect, it would be most proper to respect beliefs of a Muslim that hasn't done anything wrong to you and to anyone else as far as you know. He is respecting your beliefs, after all - he will not scold you for failing to pray to Allah, for example. Why do you scold him for praying to his god? I hold a firm and scientifically based opinion that all gods of humanity are invented by the humanity itself. This means that it does not matter who a person prays to, it has only a placebo effect. Do not hate an innocent person, as it only turns him into an enemy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:02PM
I haven't heard about such a world-wide poll of all Muslims.
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/ [pewforum.org]
Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in Egypt (86%) and Jordan (82%). Roughly two-thirds who want sharia to be the law of the land also back this penalty in the Palestinian territories (66%). In the other countries surveyed in the Middle East-North Africa region, fewer than half take this view.
In the South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, strong majorities of those who favor making Islamic law the official law of the land also approve of executing apostates (79% and 76%, respectively). However, in Bangladesh far fewer (44%) share this view.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:15PM
Is a Pew research poll good enough for you?
This poll does not support the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered".) In fact, the poll states the following:
Muslims generally say they are very free to practice their religion. Most also believe non-Muslims in their country are very free to practice their faith. And among those who view non-Muslims as very free to practice their faith, the prevailing opinion is that this is a good thing.
and:
Few Muslims see conflict between religious groups as a very big national problem. In fact, most consider unemployment, crime and corruption as bigger national problems than religious conflict. Asked specifically about Christian-Muslim hostilities, few Muslims say hostilities are widespread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:16AM
Oop! Another google-expert hoist by his own petard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:19AM
The segment of the poll best supporting the claims of the AC ("the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered") is the segment titled Sharia as the Official Law of the Land.
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed.
It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:48AM
In short, Sharia Law demands that infidels either submit to Islam in one of several ways (convert, pay a heavy tax, be a third-class citizen with effectively no rights) or be killed. It looks to me as though the original AC's claims are wrong... but also that the poll is clear that large numbers of Muslims do desire that Sharia Law be implemented where they live, with dire potential consequences for those who aren't Muslims.
I think this conclusion comes from two unrelated facts. First, the respondents directly say that they support Sharia. And then someone else opens a book, reads what Sharia is about, and comes to the conclusion that infidels will be killed or forced to convert (see above.)
However this is a conclusion, and not a direct answer to a question. Obviously, there are not too many countries in the world who can get away with forcing the population to adopt someone else's religion or to be executed. The poll did, actually, ask respondents, and here is their answer:
Among Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Only in five of 21 countries where this follow-up question was asked do at least half say all citizens should be subject to Islamic law.
Another factor that affects the "Muslims are coming!!1!" fears is the fact that respondents want to use Sharia primarily for resolution of domestic issues. Even punishment of apostates is frowned upon:
Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. The survey finds even lower support for executing apostates.
It is definitely true that Sharia is a harsh law. However if people want to be ruled by such a law... every true democrat has to accept their right to choose such a law. It won't apply to others.
If a Muslim does not want to be part of Sharia he has an option of setting his religion aside. Nobody will hunt him down and cut his head off. Certainly he could ask for trouble by flaunting his change of religion. But if he quietly moves to another city, or another state, and arrives to the new location as a non-religious person, or as an adherent of some other religion, who is going to lose her sleep over a new neighbor's affiliation, in a neighborhood that is not obsessed with religion? That would be nearly impossible in the 7th century, as people were tied to their tribe for all their life. They could not move far enough to be forgotten. Today it is trivial. You can easily be forgotten in any apartment building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:54AM
The Pew poll [pewforum.org] was shocking upon its debut as the constant refrain from the mainstream media and talking heads was, "only a tiny, insignifiant percentage of Islam's followers are the type who really believe and obey what is written in the sacred texts of Islam". The poll instead shows massive support for fundamentalist Islam (beheading the infidels, world war until all religion is for Allah, kill those who choose to leave Islam, etc.). It doesn't matter that such support may not even reach majority status - a majority isn't needed to have massive impact on external forces.
While the prior AC was wrong to state that "the vast majority of the worlds muslims believe that infidels should be murdered", the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
Yes, like you, I have also met friendly people who also claim to be Muslim; the existence of such people does not negate the ugly claims reported above.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:16PM
Opinion polls are bad science to begin with. Often they suffer from issues like poor representation of the population, biased questions, and the claims of these people can't be verified objectively. Are they simply ignorant of what Sharia law exactly is? I don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:18PM
the underlying concerns remain completely valid in that there are literal millions of Muslims that apparently desire to force themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint.
The USA is in business of exporting "democracy" for about 100 years now, by forcing themselves and their views upon others at sword/gunpoint. As matter of fact, the major grievance of Saudis who hijacked airplanes on 9/11 was US presence in Saudi Arabia.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:02AM
Agreed (except that the USA doesn't export rule-by-the-people democracy, but rule-by-the-unaccountable-few oligarchy).
Neither the USA's criminal behavior nor that of individual Muslims excuses the other.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:11AM
While also wrong, this is something very different than
"Infidels" for a Muslim are all non-Muslims. People who abandon Islam are people who stop being Muslims. The vast majority of non-Muslims ("infidels") were never Muslims to begin with (i.e. never abandoned Islam).
Note also that the second paragraph only makes statements about those who favour making Islamic law the official law, without stating what percentage of the population that is (and note that again, it's about killing apostates, not about killing infidels). Therefore the numbers given there are not very useful for determining the opinion of the majority of Muslims. For example, in Hypothetistan, there are a million Muslims, but only ten of them support making Islamic law official law. Nine of those ten also support killing apostates. None of the others support that. Therefore in Hypothetistan, 90% of those who support making Islamic law official also support killing apostates, but only 0.0009% of all Muslims do.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:56PM
Adding to that, an individual's right ends where the right of another begins.
And there is no right to have other people's speech censored because you're offended, so there is no such issue here.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:24AM
So, Lana Shortbread, may I call you that? You think it's ok for me to call you a self-righteous, immature moron, because I can?
Why don't you go outside and insult someone on the street and see what happens. For bonus points, try that with a police officer. I'm sure they'll be very understanding, even if you explicitly mention that you're just stating your own opinion.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:51AM
So, Lana Shortbread, may I call you that? You think it's ok for me to call you a self-righteous, immature moron, because I can?
You're changing the topic. The topic was whether someone has the *right* to say such things, not whether I'm ok with absolutely everything someone might say. Do I think you should have the legal right to say those things? Absolutely. I simply don't hate basic liberties such as freedom of speech.
Why don't you go outside and insult someone on the street and see what happens. For bonus points, try that with a police officer. I'm sure they'll be very understanding, even if you explicitly mention that you're just stating your own opinion.
I'm not quite seeing your point. Are you implying that I'll get beat up or some other such thing? If so, so what? What does being a barbarian prove? Nothing. It doesn't mean I don't/shouldn't have the legal right to say something; it just means the people who assault me simply for saying things they don't like need to be put in jail.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:39AM
I'm not quite seeing your point.
At this point I don't feel like repeating myself, but I'll do it for the sake of completeness: your right ends where another's begins. Go ask a lawyer, what right that is that you would be violating.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:01AM
There is no right to "not be offended".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:11PM
I don't feel like repeating myself either, but you have no right to silence other people's speech because you're offended. Your rights are not infringed upon because you're offended. Since anyone could be offended by anything, your position is unworkable.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:11PM
That's not what I'm referring to. You can't go running around insulting people either, Lana.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday April 30 2015, @11:56PM
Well, then you're doing a very bad job of communicating your point. When you say that you have no right to X, you're saying that it's permissible for the government to stop you from doing X.
You can't go running around insulting people either, Lana.
What would prevent anyone from doing so?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @05:51AM
Lawsuits, babe. Lots of them. At least in D-A-CH countries. Because, you know, people have a right to not be insulted over there. Don't necessarily know about other parts of the world.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 01 2015, @06:13AM
They don't have freedom of speech, then. Court decisions are enforced by the government.
Because, you know, people have a right to not be insulted over there.
That is anti-freedom to the core.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @11:37AM
That is anti-freedom to the core.
That's your opinion and lots of people will disagree with you.
They don't have freedom of speech, then.
They do, a long as they don't impose their "freedom" on others, like the US Government seems to be doing quite often.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday May 01 2015, @12:44PM
That's your opinion and lots of people will disagree with you.
If you infringe upon a fundamental right such as freedom of speech, that is pretty much by definition anti-freedom. Every country has plenty of improving to do, and this is one way those countries can be improved.
They do, a long as they don't impose their "freedom" on others
That makes absolutely zero sense. If you "impose" your freedom of speech on others, then you are giving them freedom of speech. Clearly you're referring to the nonexistent right to not be offended, which is a sort of "right" that simply does not exist in any sane country.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:30PM
Clearly you're referring to the nonexistent right to not be offended
In general, it's quite unwise to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people or their actions, if you don't know the well. You're wrong, I'm referring amongst others to the right of bodily and moral integrity. You can go and find some studies on how words can do bodily harm, if you disagree with the notion of moral integrity.
Apparently I lack the facilities to convey my reasoning in a manner that would be understandable to you. But I'll give it another go. From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] (emphasis and commentary added):
Article 1:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. [i.e. also, not cause strife, grief, etc. AKA Treat others in a way that you want to be treated by them. [wikipedia.org]]
Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 7:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 18:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, and finally:
Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Did I make myself clear? Your rights END where the rights of others begin. Period. End. Of. Story.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @04:00PM
In general, it's quite unwise to make assumptions and jump to conclusions about other people or their actions, if you don't know the well.
This conversation is about speech. You keep saying things like 'Your rights end where the rights of others begin.' when it comes to insults and people being offended. I am not assuming anything; I am simply responding to things you yourself have told me. You are obviously pro-censorship and anti-free speech, no matter how you try to butter it up. If this is not what you intended to convey, then you are seriously bad at communicating.
You can go and find some studies on how words can do bodily harm, if you disagree with the notion of moral integrity.
They cannot. Any offense you take is your own doing.
And anyone with a brain disagrees with the extremely subjective and arbitrary notion of "moral integrity" being taken taken into account in the law; it's simply insane, and used to justify laws which violate our most basic liberties.
Did I make myself clear? Your rights END where the rights of others begin. Period. End. Of. Story.
There is no right to not be offended. If any countries recognize such a 'right', then they are broken beyond belief, in a different way than other countries are.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:33PM
You are obviously pro-censorship and anti-free speech, no matter how you try to butter it up. If this is not what you intended to convey, then you are seriously bad at communicating.
Obviously, you fail at understanding what I'm saying. I don't know why that is, because I gave you a nice example with emphasized passages relating to our conversation here from a very authoritative source (UN).
They cannot. Any offense you take is your own doing.
You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide you the studies on a silver plate. Go and find them yourself or take a couple of psychology books or stay ignorant for all I care.
And anyone with a brain disagrees with the extremely subjective and arbitrary notion of "moral integrity"
Thanks for insulting me and loads of other people. And please forgive me for questioning the ultimate authority in all questions, which you apparently represent.
There is no right to not be offended. If any countries recognize such a 'right', then they are broken beyond belief, in a different way than other countries are.
I presented to you a logical chain of emphasized passages from the UNITED NATIONS [!] Universal [!] Declaration of Human Rights proving to you the opposite. All you do is appeal to your own (questionable) authority. ("The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 December 1948" - source [wikipedia.org].)
If you believe that the signatories' countries are broken beyond belief (which, coincidentally, I agree with to an extent, but for completely different reasons), that is your opinion.
Here's [lmddgtfy.net] another argument [wikipedia.org].
Unless you bring something else than your opinion to the table, you can kindly fuck off now.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:47PM
Obviously, you fail at understanding what I'm saying.
It doesn't look that way. It looks to me like you're playing word games to avoid admitting that you support limiting freedom of speech by saying that certain types of speech aren't True Free Speech, and therefore you're not actually limiting anyone's rights.
You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide you the studies on a silver plate.
I'm wrong, but you won't bother to explain how words can physically harm others? That is quite an extraordinary claim. Are you referring to sounds that are sufficiently loud enough? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Go and find them yourself or take a couple of psychology books or stay ignorant for all I care.
I have no need of your cherry-picked studies or your pseudoscience books, since I strive to be logical and informed.
Thanks for insulting me and loads of other people.
No problem. It is easy for me to insult people who do not respect basic rights such as freedom of speech.
I presented to you a logical chain of emphasized passages from the UNITED NATIONS [!] Universal [!] Declaration of Human Rights proving to you the opposite.
Appealing to authority will not help you. If all the countries in the world do evil, then all that means is that all the countries in the world are doing evil; nothing more. An immoral restriction upon freedom of speech is not better simply because the UN endorses it, and it is certainly not uncontroversial in any case.
All you do is appeal to your own (questionable) authority.
I am giving you my opinion. The UN's authoritarian opinions about freedom of speech are not relevant to me.
Unless you bring something else than your opinion to the table, you can kindly fuck off now.
I will not. And whether you like it or not, all you've done is give me your authoritarian opinion by citing the UN's authoritarian opinion. Citing people, organizations, or texts you agree with does not magically change anything.
Maybe you could be less of a coward and just admit that you are opposed to freedom of speech?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:13PM
Maybe you could be less of a coward and just admit that you are opposed to freedom of speech?
Are you an idiot? Seriously. I think you are. You generalize things by saying "all" people and "everyone" and whatever the fuck else you use for your pseudo-arguments and then you're telling me that I'm wrong by citing like one of the most well-respected organizations with regards to human rights?
Let me repeat, are you a fucking IDIOT? You're the one telling me about freedom and rights and then you disregard the UN, the sole organization that actually has an impact globally on freedoms and rights? What the fuck? Are you just trolling? Because if you're serious, I pity you.
I'm wrong, but you won't bother to explain how words can physically harm others? That is quite an extraordinary claim.
You're welcome to pay my hourly rate, plus a premium of 1000% for having to babysit you and I will gladly find you studies by respected, actual authorities on this topic. Otherwise - fuck off!
Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
No need to state the obvious, it's apparent that you're ignorant.
It looks to me like you're playing word games to avoid admitting that you support limiting freedom of speech by saying that certain types of speech aren't True Free Speech
The world isn't black and white, bozo. Even if your simple mind would like it to be that way.
Are you referring to sounds that are sufficiently loud enough? Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Good, and I hope it will stay that way for you, because if you grow some empathy, you'll be in a world of pain. No LSD for you, friend.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:43PM
and then you're telling me that I'm wrong by citing like one of the most well-respected organizations with regards to human rights?
Being so well-respected, they really need to update their position on freedom of speech, because the issues with their current position are obvious. Otherwise, I fear they only reinforce the beliefs of authoritarians everywhere that such subjective, arbitrary restrictions upon freedom of speech are okay.
Let me repeat, are you a fucking IDIOT? You're the one telling me about freedom and rights and then you disregard the UN, the sole organization that actually has an impact globally on freedoms and rights?
You might feel it is alright to mindlessly appeal to authority, but I am merely telling you that the authority figure you hold in such high regard is wrong in this case. They might have some other good ideas, but that does not make them right 100% of the time.
You're welcome to pay my hourly rate, plus a premium of 1000% for having to babysit you and I will gladly find you studies by respected, actual authorities on this topic. Otherwise - fuck off!
I reject your claim, then.
No need to state the obvious, it's apparent that you're ignorant.
If someone were to say that Islam's prophet was a pedophile with the intention of offending others, what do you think the government should do about that person?
The world isn't black and white, bozo. Even if your simple mind would like it to be that way.
You're seemingly playing dishonest word games, and I'm calling you out for it. I have asked you numerous time if you support limiting freedom of speech, and you've constantly told me I'm misinterpreting you. When you do such things, surely you don't expect that people won't take notice of this and criticize you?
Good, and I hope it will stay that way for you, because if you grow some empathy, you'll be in a world of pain.
Your claim was that the words themselves can cause physical harm. I am aware that some people can take offense to certain things already.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:27PM
I reject your claim, then.
And look at how many fucks I give about that [theamountoffucksigive.com], especially, if you're unwilling to go and research some generally accepted, scientifically proven statement. You're the one welcome to prove that psychology is a pseudoscience, because the status quo is that for the majority of the scientific world it is not.
Being so well-respected, they really need to update their position on freedom of speech, because the issues with their current position are obvious
[citation needed]
I am merely telling you that the authority figure you hold in such high regard is wrong in this case
[citation needed]
If someone were to say that Islam's prophet was a pedophile with the intention of offending others, what do you think the government should do about that person?
The government and/or the offended people are welcome to sue the offending person. Similar situation as with e.g. calling someone names or with slander (even though the statement might be true in this particular case).
I have asked you numerous time if you support limiting freedom of speech, and you've constantly told me I'm misinterpreting you.
There are more urgent and important rights than freedom of speech. Like the right to remain free of bodily (and mostly consequently, psychological) injury and harm.
That's why I keep telling you that your rights end where mine begin. If, for instance, you start pushing someone on the street, don't be surprised if your face makes an acquaintance with the fist of that person or someone else's standing up for him/her. If you go and walk around someone's property, because you are free to move around, don't be surprised to be kicked out.
Your claim was that the words themselves can cause physical harm.
The claim is that words can lead to physical harm, and it stands as it is. "Turn on the electric chair!" and "Go ahead, jump! No one cares about you." are two (very) primitive examples. Another example is that e.g. if a person has heart problems and you create stress by saying something offending, the person can die.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @07:14PM
especially, if you're unwilling to go and research some generally accepted, scientifically proven statement.
The claim is that words can lead to physical harm, and it stands as it is. "Turn on the electric chair!" and "Go ahead, jump! No one cares about you." are two (very) primitive examples. Another example is that e.g. if a person has heart problems and you create stress by saying something offending, the person can die.
I see. Then that is still absolute bullshit, because it is someone else choosing to respond to the words in ways that harm themselves or others that cause the harmful actions to happen, not the words. Offense is also taken, not given.
You're the one welcome to prove that psychology is a pseudoscience, because the status quo is that for the majority of the scientific world it is not.
There are good reasons to believe otherwise. [arachnoid.com] The soft 'sciences' aren't nearly as rigorous as other fields, are more open to bias, and are far more subjective. There are some good scientists that detail the limits of their studies, however. Bad science in psychology brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others (kind of like what you're doing now). "Do video games cause violence? This study I agree with says yes (and I'm going to ignore the overall scientific consensus and refer to one or a few studies), so it must be true, and therefore we need to ban violent video games."
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Citation: Me, and presumably anyone who isn't an authoritarian like yourself. Your standards would obliterate freedom of speech and allow the most oversensitive groups to censor anyone else by continually getting angry until it becomes 'unreasonable' to expect that they wouldn't.
The government and/or the offended people are welcome to sue the offending person.
Anyone is already welcome to try to sue for just about anything, but should they win?
There are more urgent and important rights than freedom of speech.
There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them. Freedom is far more important than safety.
That's why I keep telling you that your rights end where mine begin.
And saying this in regards to speech some find offensive makes no sense whatsoever.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @07:47PM
someone else choosing to respond to the words
No, the heart patient doesn't choose, it's an automatic reaction.
There are good reasons to believe otherwise.
Bad science in <insert science here> brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others
FTFY. Bad is bad is bad is bad... mh'kay?
Your standards would obliterate freedom of speech and allow the most oversensitive groups to censor anyone else by continually getting angry until it becomes 'unreasonable' to expect that they wouldn't.
No, the fanatics would eventually all sit in jail for murder ;)
Citation: Me, and presumably anyone who isn't an authoritarian like yourself.
For someone who seems so keen on allowing only hard sciences, you make a lot of assumptions.
Anyone is already welcome to try to sue for just about anything, but should they win
That's, fortunately, not for you (or me) to decide. Let professionals handle this question, not armchair philosophers.
There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them.
Prove it.
Freedom is far more important than safety.
For an anarchist maybe, for anyone else (save the other extreme) a balance is what makes society work [wikipedia.org].
And saying this in regards to speech some find offensive makes no sense whatsoever.
What about in regards to speech lots find offensive?
So let me get this straight, for you a) the world is black and white, b) freedom of speech trumps the security of societal balance? That's quite an attitude problem IMO.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday May 04 2015, @08:12PM
No, the heart patient doesn't choose, it's an automatic reaction.
The words do not force him to become stressed out, and nor have they forced him to be offended.
Bad science in brings about more detrimental effects since they can be used in to argue in favor of controlling others
FTFY. Bad is bad is bad is bad... mh'kay?
I gave examples. Since psychology deals with human psychology, there are few more opportunities for people to use bad science to advocate for government control over others as compared to, say, physics.
No, the fanatics would eventually all sit in jail for murder ;)
They would not murder, but sue and threaten until they get what they want. Their delicate sensibilities are being offended, after all, and we can't have that.
For someone who seems so keen on allowing only hard sciences, you make a lot of assumptions.
If you mean I'm making assumptions about you, I'm simply taking your words at face value, which leads me to conclude you are an authoritarian.
That's, fortunately, not for you (or me) to decide.
I am asking you a question. Given my example, do you think the person who insulted Muhammed should be punished?
Prove it.
You want me to prove to you that I have certain priorities?
For an anarchist maybe, for anyone else (save the other extreme) a balance is what makes society work.
No, for anyone who cares about freedom. Surrendering our fundamental liberties (and freedom of speech is one of our most basic liberties) in exchange for 'safety' from things like being offended (Ha!) is disgusting and anyone who advocates such things should move to North Korea. It wouldn't surprise me if you also supported mass surveillance, free speech zones, and other freedom-violating measures. You might as well. There's nothing anarchist about preferring freedom over safety; it's just a recognition that things like freedom of speech are more important than physical or mental safety.
What about in regards to speech lots find offensive?
Same thing. You're seemingly advocating for tyranny of the majority now.
a) the world is black and white
Not so much. I just have different priorities from authoritarians such as yourself. Whereas you may prefer to align yourself with countries like North Korea and China, I prefer to strive for a more free society.
b) freedom of speech trumps the security of societal balance?
I do not believe speech can be harmful at all (short of sounds loud enough to cause physical harm), so there is no balance to be had.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @09:38PM
The words do not force him to become stressed out, and nor have they forced him to be offended.
You're wrong. Ask a doctor.
I gave examples. Since psychology deals with human psychology, there are few more opportunities for people to use bad science to advocate for government control over others as compared to, say, physics.
So what, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a pseudo-science, as is generally and widely accepted. There's black sheep everywhere, just look in the mirror.
They would not murder, but sue and threaten until they get what they want.
That is, if society (or the judges) doesn't tell them to fuck off at some point. And regarding threats, you can go to jail for that.
which leads me to conclude you are an authoritarian.
You're wrong. I'm zen. Totally centered. You're the one who is in one of the extremes.
Given my example
What example?
do you think the person who insulted Muhammed should be punished?
That's not for me to decide but for the people that have an emotional stake in this, i.e. Muslims.
You want me to prove to you that I have certain priorities?
Your statement: "There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them." does not mention your priorities, you're just presenting your opinion as a fact. Again, without backing anything up.
No, for anyone who cares about freedom.
I care about my (and my family's) freedom to develop in the way that I (they) want, and for this I (we) need a working society. I can imagine improvements for the one we live in, but what you suggest will lead to a total collapse.
So you're wrong. Again.
anyone who advocates such things should move to North Korea.
But I'm the authoritarian here, right?
It wouldn't surprise me if you also supported mass surveillance, free speech zones
So it must surprise you that I don't.
There's nothing anarchist about preferring freedom over safety; it's just a recognition that things like freedom of speech are more important than physical or mental safety.
Ok, let's meet tomorrow at 12 am in the park. You can express your opinion and I will have some acquaintances of mine prove to you that your mental and physical safety is more important to you. Slowly and painfully.
You're seemingly advocating for tyranny of the majority now.
You fail to understand that only by voluntarily limiting your own freedoms you gain the ability to exert them. This is not an oxymoron, but you seem to be too blind to understand this.
Whereas you may prefer to align yourself with countries like North Korea and China, I prefer to strive for a more free society.
Let me guess, you've never been to China, North Korea, The Soviet Union or the US... oh wait..
Regardless... So you're suggesting a functioning society of individualists. Now that is an oxymoron. You can only have a society, when you limit your freedoms as an individual. Go read some books and grow up.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting the dissolution of individualism. That doesn't work either. The only thing that leads to evolution is the middle path. Anything else leads to degradation and/or destruction.
I do not believe speech can be harmful at all
Maybe that's the only thing we're arguing about then? Maybe you should go see a doctor after all (about that heart patient example).
Could you imagine if one of your loved ones is bullied to the grave? Would you still think it's their decision? What if it's just a kid? I have difficulties believing that you're such a cold as ice, motherfucker. But then again, I do have issues with seeing the good in people.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:44AM
You're wrong. Ask a doctor.
If a doctor said otherwise, he would be incorrect. Your endless appeal to insignificant authority figures is useless. Offense is taken, not given; sorry you can't understand something so simple. The vibrations in the air that he interprets a certain way are killing him!
So what, that doesn't change the fact that it's not a pseudo-science, as is generally and widely accepted.
Many, many psychology studies are horrible jokes. As I said, if a particular study details its limitations and is generally honest about its conclusion, then that is one thing. But the field is nowhere near the level of, say, physics.
That is, if society (or the judges) doesn't tell them to fuck off at some point. And regarding threats, you can go to jail for that.
Under your system, they would never "fuck off" because being offended is apparently a good enough reason to silence speech.
You're wrong. I'm zen. Totally centered. You're the one who is in one of the extremes.
My position isn't any more "extreme" to me than someone who doesn't want the government to have the power to murder people for no reason. If it is "extreme" to you, I would posit that it's because you're an authoritarian who thinks that authoritarianism is normal and good, but that is jsut a guess.
What example?
Pay more attention.
That's not for me to decide but for the people that have an emotional stake in this, i.e. Muslims.
Wait... so the people who have an emotional stake in this should hand out the punishment themselves? I am asking you if someone who says that Muhammed is a pedophile to offend others would be punished under your system, or if you think they should be punished.
Your statement: "There aren't many, and protecting people's sensibilities aren't one of them." does not mention your priorities, you're just presenting your opinion as a fact.
I'm presenting my opinion as people often present their opinion: Without constantly stating "In my opinion...". You don't understand how human language works, clearly, because there are many instances where you did the same.
I can imagine improvements for the one we live in, but what you suggest will lead to a total collapse.
Being able to offend people would lead to a total collapse? Interesting.
But I'm the authoritarian here, right?
Yes. I merely suggested that if you want such a government, one already exists; it's North Korea. No need to corrupt or continue to corrupt existing governments with your rampant authoritarianism.
So it must surprise you that I don't.
The fact that it wouldn't surprise me if you did doesn't mean it surprises me that you supposedly don't. Though, I think you're being inconsistent here. The bogeymen are going to get us, and since freedom is worthless, clearly mass surveillance is justified.
Ok, let's meet tomorrow at 12 am in the park. You can express your opinion and I will have some acquaintances of mine prove to you that your mental and physical safety is more important to you. Slowly and painfully.
It's clear to me that you'd prefer to spew forth straw men rather than attempt to understand my position. You are equating the general principle "Freedom is more important than safety." with complete anarchism, which is a false comparison. You are probably taking it so literally because it is more convenient for your arguments.
You fail to understand that only by voluntarily limiting your own freedoms you gain the ability to exert them.
No, not in this case. If a majority find something offensive, that's no different from some people finding it offensive; that is, it doesn't matter, as it doesn't mean the speech should be banned. I don't live in a direct democracy where the majority has absolute power, and I wouldn't want to, so I'm not sure what you were trying to do.
Let me guess, you've never been to China, North Korea, The Soviet Union or the US... oh wait..
They generally believe that it's okay to violate people's fundamental liberties 'For the Greater Good', or for the ambitions of the leaders. Fundamental liberties including freedom of speech. Maybe you should think about going there?
Regardless... So you're suggesting a functioning society of individualists.
Nope, one that protects fundamental liberties like freedom of speech over things like censoring speech that offends people. Government censorship is 100% intolerable.
The only thing that leads to evolution is the middle path. Anything else leads to degradation and/or destruction.
Ah, yes, The One True Middle Path. Nice argument to moderation.
Maybe that's the only thing we're arguing about then? Maybe you should go see a doctor after all (about that heart patient example).
Again, the doctor would be incorrect, as the words did not *force* that person to become offended, and nor is the speaker able to command that they do so; different people are offended by different things. You blame the speaker, but I correctly recognize that how someone responds to the speech is on them.
Could you imagine if one of your loved ones is bullied to the grave? Would you still think it's their decision? What if it's just a kid?
That would be their decision.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:59AM
If a doctor said otherwise, he would be incorrect.
No he wouldn't.
Many, many studies are horrible jokes.
FTFY. Absurd generalization. Invalid argument.
Under your system, they would never "fuck off"
You fail at reading comprehension. They have no say whether they will fuck off or not.
My position isn't any more "extreme" to me than someone who doesn't want the government to have the power to murder people for no reason.
Your position is extreme to me, because there are more important things than speech and you fail to recognize the simple fact that life is neither static, nor black and white.
Pay more attention.
Look who's talking.
I am asking you if someone who says <something> to offend others would be punished under your system, or if you think they should be punished.
FTFY. That's how our society works currently, apparently you never met someone, who kicked your ass for insisting on your freedom of expression. There are courts and laws that can decide whether someone is inciting violence, which is punishable by law in many countries including in the EU.
You don't understand how human language works, clearly
You are the one, who doesn't seem to understand how a statement has to be backed up in some way other than "it is my opinion" in a mature discourse.
Being able to offend people would lead to a total collapse? Interesting.
Always insisting on one's right, disrespecting others and always putting freedom of speech above bodily integrity leads that way. Obviously.
You are equating the general principle "Freedom is more important than safety." with complete anarchism, which is a false comparison.
No it's not. The world is not black and white and your freedom ends where another's begins. You're the one insisting on the mindless premise that freedom always trumps security. Why don't you go out in the next "migrant neighborhood" and spout nazi slogans or go insult some group's ideology in their face and see what happens and whether you continue to insist on your freedom of expression and how you're right about it. In some situations you might even be right, but you'd be dead or in the hospital with serious injuries and wouldn't be able to further your agenda, thus it is futile to insist on freedom of expression, when your life or health is in danger (again, in most situations). If you don't see this, this whole discussion with you is pointless and I just have to give up on you, as for me and in this case you're absolutely hopeless.
No, not in this case.
Oh, now it's not in this case, before you were insisting on being categorical. What's going on?
it doesn't matter, as it doesn't mean the speech should be banned
It's not, you're free to express insulting speech in the confines of your home but not in public spaces or risk punishment. Refer to incitement, if you need clarification.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do.
I ain't trying anything. I'm telling you that you can't always insist on your freedom of expression and that it doesn't trump other freedoms (in most situations). If you fail to understand this, you lack life experience and this is solely your problem that you have to cope with.
They generally believe that it's okay to violate people's fundamental liberties 'For the Greater Good'
I challenge you to name a country that is not fictional and does not adhere to this principle.
Maybe you should think about going there?
Been there, done that. Next.
Government censorship is 100% intolerable.
This is not about governmental censorship this is about self-censorship for the sake of harmony aka respect (and to a lesser extent, to prevent injury and maintain integrity). Same way you probably don't go around shouting at and insulting people on the street.
Ah, yes, The One True Middle Path.
Indeed, though it is broader and wider than you may realize at this time. This concept is like a thread that goes through all societies since like the beginning of recorded time.
the words did not *force* that person to become offended, and nor is the speaker able to command that they do so
The question is whether words can cause psychological and bodily injury and they can.
I correctly recognize that how someone responds to the speech is on them.
You're incorrect, as you can't fully consciously control such chemical reactions in your body, unless you've attained enlightenment, which you didn't or we wouldn't be having this argument.
That would be their decision.
Right... So it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
IMO, you cherry pick what you want, generalize or take things literal where and when you see fit and are absolutely inconsistent from a logical perspective. I doubt that I will be interested to discuss this matter with you further and hope that you will always stay short of having any real power or influence over people, if my impression of you is even remotely right. If you are serious about what you are saying, you would be a threat to any existing society, including North Korea.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:32AM
No he wouldn't.
Whatever you say.
FTFY. Absurd generalization. Invalid argument.
It happens more often in the hard sciences due to the subjectivity, bias, and difficulties involved. The human mind is a complex thing, and trying to get objective, unbiased data about it is difficult.
You fail at reading comprehension. They have no say whether they will fuck off or not.
I'm saying your courts won't tell them to fuck off, because apparently we need to protect people's delicate sensibilities.
Your position is extreme to me, because there are more important things than speech and you fail to recognize the simple fact that life is neither static, nor black and white.
Things more important than speech to me are things like stopping the government from murdering people. Notice how I'm placing limits on the government's power, not people's right to offend others.
FTFY. That's how our society works currently, apparently you never met someone, who kicked your ass for insisting on your freedom of expression.
And anyone who uses physical violence against another for speaking should be punished appropriately.
You are the one, who doesn't seem to understand how a statement has to be backed up in some way other than "it is my opinion" in a mature discourse.
Whereas you are saying "This is my opinion, and I'm going to also appeal to the status quo." Society is often wrong, so that is meaningless. Placing such limits on freedom of speech will only encourage the oversensitive to voice their objections more strongly to silence others.
Always insisting on one's right, disrespecting others and always putting freedom of speech above bodily integrity leads that way. Obviously.
Freedom of speech cannot violate bodily integrity. Disrespecting or offending others will not be able to collapse anything.
No it's not. The world is not black and white and your freedom ends where another's begins.
It is clear that we disagree on what freedoms we should. To me (and to some extent, even the US, though there is unjust and unconstitutional censorship here), freedom of speech is *much* more important than stopping people from being offended.
In some situations you might even be right, but you'd be dead or in the hospital with serious injuries and wouldn't be able to further your agenda, thus it is futile to insist on freedom of expression, when your life or health is in danger (again, in most situations).
Appeal to force. Protecting freedom of speech means not allowing the government to silence people *and* not allowing normal people to silence others with force.
Oh, now it's not in this case, before you were insisting on being categorical. What's going on?
No clue what you mean, or meant.
It's not, you're free to express insulting speech in the confines of your home but not in public spaces or risk punishment.
Not being able to speak in public is a severe restriction on freedom of speech. Sharing your opinions with others in the public square is an extremely important right, even if that speech is offensive.
I challenge you to name a country that is not fictional and does not adhere to this principle.
There is a difference between a liberty and a fundamental liberty. In that instance, I was speaking of basic rights such as freedom of speech and the right to life, among other things.
This is not about governmental censorship this is about self-censorship for the sake of harmony aka respect
So you do not advocate for government censorship, then? Because if the government gets involved at all and punishes someone for their speech, that counts as government interference with speech. If someone beats you up for speaking, that is also a violation of your free speech rights.
Indeed, though it is broader and wider than you may realize at this time. This concept is like a thread that goes through all societies since like the beginning of recorded time.
You're just using an argument to moderation. What is and is not a "middle path" or "extreme" is subjective.
The question is whether words can cause psychological and bodily injury and they can.
You have contradicted yourself. Earlier, you said that words can *lead* to bodily injury, even going so far as to correct me on that. Now you're saying that the words themselves cause it.
And no, they can't. How people choose to react to your words is where any 'harm' may come in. The words themselves do nothing.
You're incorrect, as you can't fully consciously control such chemical reactions in your body
Even if you cannot control yourself, the words themselves (and the speaker) have still done nothing. It is on you, even if your unconscious mind influences your decisions.
Right... So it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
Correct.
IMO, you cherry pick what you want, generalize or take things literal where and when you see fit and are absolutely inconsistent from a logical perspective.
From a logical perspective, I am completely consistent. I believe in absolute freedom of speech. Passing around child porn should not be punishable. Death threats should not be punishable. Offending others definitely shouldn't be punishable, which is an insane belief even to many people who do not agree with my absolute freedom of speech position. Etcetera.
If you are serious about what you are saying, you would be a threat to any existing society, including North Korea.
Freedom is indeed a threat to authoritarians everywhere.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @10:49AM
it's ok for someone to exert their "freedom of expression" and tell a 3 year old to jump out of the window by convincing the kid that he/she can fly? That's totally freedom of speech and should be tolerated, right? And such speech should not be censored, ever.
Correct.
Even if that's your 3 year old? I have never seen such a display of total ignorance. Bravo.
I hope you will always be kept from positions of influence and power, because all you will be able to do is harm everyone else around you in your arrogant pursuit of an extreme ideology. In short, you're just a fanatic.
This discussion with you is from my perspective pointless until you gain some experience.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:01AM
Even if that's your 3 year old? I have never seen such a display of total ignorance. Bravo.
Do I think they should be legally forbidden from doing so? No. I might not agree with their speech, however.
I hope you will always be kept from positions of influence and power
Not entirely. You can always vote for candidates who agree with you, so there is some amount of influence and power.
In short, you're just a fanatic.
Likewise, I would describe you as a fanatic.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @11:53AM
Likewise, I would describe you as a fanatic.
Great, we agree on something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:11AM
You believe murder and words are the same? Whoah, put the keyboard down and walk away slowly!
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:59AM
You believe murder and words are the same?
"You must be a communist/pedophile/terrorist/something else atrocious."
No, I don't believe that. I condemn the killing, but I also condemn the provocation on the part of the satirists, may they R.I.P..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM
By the looks of it, the magazine specializes on inflaming demographics. Some of them would be marginalized ones.
So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech. If you have to resort to obtaining illegal automatic weapons and shooting the people you disagree with, then you have absolutely no place in a society that values freedom of speech.
Anyone who actually defends those who resort to violence also has no place in a society that values freedom of speech.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:21PM
So what? If certain demographics don't like it, they don't have to read it. This is what freedom of speech is all about: if you don't like what's being said, you can ignore it, or counter it with your own speech.
If so, you need to explain why laws about libel and defamation exist. Without them I could tell lies about you to all your friends and neighbors and employers and business partners, and all you could do would be... to tell them that I'm a liar? Much good will that do to you. You don't even know whose exactly minds are poisoned by my lies. If you deny your wrongdoing to someone who hasn't heard about it yet, you'd be doing my work for me.
Or, perhaps, you are talking about your own speech in court? I don't think anyone here will be defending the shooters. However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court. Freedom of speech and all that. Where does that leave you, or them? Should they have packed up and left the country? Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone? It doesn't matter that they are Muslims - the previous attempt of this very kind involved Jews.
It is also important to note that minorities, just by the fact of their small number and smaller influence in the society, cannot respond to every word of their opponent with their own word. It's called tyranny of majority, and the laws exist to make sure that no group, large or small, is permitted to mistreat another group. In case of France, a certain group was permitted by wink and nod of the court to mistreat a minority, even though the minority repeatedly asked to stop this activity.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:41PM
Saying something bad about someone is only improper when it isn't true.
Truth: Muslims worship a prophet who slept with children.
Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill an infidel.
Truth: Many muslims believe it is proper to kill anyone who converts away from islam.
Truth: Many muslims would kill a person if they thought they had even inadvertently destroyed a koran.
All fucking verifiably true. So I am not lying about you to your friends and neighbors, I am warning them about you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM
Libel and slander aren't crimes. They're torts. The government will never bother you about either of these things; you can say whatever you want about someone, and the government will never put you in jail over it. You can be sued, however, just like you can be sued any time someone wrongs you; if the judge (or jury) agrees with you, you get a judgment and maybe you'll get the defendant to pay it.
However the Muslims tried to sue Charlie Hebdo, several times - and they got nowhere in French court.
Boo hoo. Making fun of a religion is not the same as falsely defaming a person. If I say that "John is a pedophile" (and worse, tell his employer that), that causes John material harm. If I say "Scientology is a stupid religion", who does that hurt exactly? There's no person there, just a large group. Plus, my claim isn't even non-factual (which in the US at least is required for it to be actionable), it's a matter of opinion.
Should they have packed up and left the country?
If they can't stand their stupid religion being mocked, then yes, they should have left the country. Otherwise, STFU; everyone gets made fun of at some point.
Is that what a democratic society strives for, to ostracize and exile a minority that, until now, hasn't hurt anyone?
Twelve dead people at Charlie Hebdo disagree with you about them not hurting anyone.
No one "ostracized" them; they were lampooned. It happens to every group. Are you saying political parties shouldn't be mocked? So why is a religion above all criticism?
Honestly, it's really pathetic that people like you are actually calling for limiting free speech and criticism of anyone just because they're a minority and are apparently so easily offended they'll resort to mass murder.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:35PM
France (like here in the UK) has little time for defending freedom of speech, unless the establishment deems it worth of defence, as in this instance. I suspect this was solely because of the barbaric atrocity that resulted from its publication - I'm not sure we'd be talking about it otherwise.
I'd certainly agree with Greenwald that the "free speech" parade was nauseatingly hypocritical. Perhaps the award should be renamed "Freedom of Approved Expression Courage Award".
(Score: 5, Funny) by tibman on Tuesday April 28 2015, @07:44PM
Which is often the definition of courage. Brainless if he didn't realize there was a danger (and then no courage required). Reckless if he didn't care about his own well being (very doubtful). I'm certain he knew he was going to provoke a response and have to deal with the consequences. SN doesn't murder its trolls. We tune them out. They are still free to say what they want. Consensus determines if what they say should be more visible or less. Spammers on the other hand, i think it's legal to murder them.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:53PM
The fact that its even considered "reckless" is a great reason that this is the sort of thing that should be satirized, and as frequently as possible. Personally I find it sad that you may be taking your life into your own hands when you make fun of a religion. Do people actually think that playing along and not insulting (this specific, in this case) religion will make things better?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:09PM
At what point does speech go from mere words to incitement to crime? It seems among the left in Europe, and arguably in the States, the guilty party isn't the one who shoots or riots, but the one who "triggered" such a response by speaking words that are disagreeable. This can only lead to authoritarianism.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:20PM
The US isn't nearly that bad (for all its other faults). We still do value freedom of speech, and the only way you're going to get in trouble for "inciting" is in a situation where you're provoking someone one-on-one with "fighting words". Even there, the person resorting to violence will still get in trouble for assault, but your provocation will probably lead to a lesser punishment. (IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt. Plus, things vary a lot state-to-state.) Provocation doesn't mean anything like drawing pictures lampooning stupid religions and publishing them, it means actually being in an interpersonal situation with someone and getting them angry with your verbal provocation. In practice, it's only seen with things like bar fights.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:30AM
In general, you're mostly correct, Grishnakh. I will point out that the USA isn't nearly as free with its speech as it should be, when some idiot like Hal Turner [wikipedia.org] gets convicted of crimes and thrown in prison for being an idiot off the leash (while claiming that he was an idiot while on the FBI's leash with no apparent consequences).
I'd like to think that a person's actions are all that can be considered in regards to whether or not a crime has been committed... but there's always the damnable edge cases in speech where some drooling idiot pats the weapon at his side while leering into another's face and says, "when you leave town tomorrow, I'm going to take this here weapon and kill your wife and children with it". I couldn't see myself sitting on a jury and convicting the husband of a crime for subsequently shooting the leering git in the face.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wantkitteh on Wednesday April 29 2015, @05:39AM
Charlie Hebdo practised freedom of expression, but then so do Westboro Baptist Church. [splcenter.org] While neither group deserves murder at the hands of religious extremists, neither deserves an award for bravery either. If anything, France's legal reaction to the attacks, the Glorification of Terrorist laws or whatever they're called, have done more to damage freedom of expression than protect it. While that's not Charlie Hebdo's fault, it's certainly nothing for anyone to be proud of. In fact, there's nothing in this whole Charlie Hebdo story that anyone should be proud of - at best, it's a cautionary tale from any angle you look at it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:14PM
I currently live in France, and have done so for over 7 years, and I am also a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo. I really cannot understand the problem here. CH satirizes all religions equally, as well as politicians, world figures, terrorists, rioters, sports personalities and anything else that is currently in the news. But in TFS they are only complaining about how it affects Muslims?
The Islamic Faith may be very special to those who follow it, but to everyone else it has no special status in the world. No one should be made to suffer because on their faith, but that does not mean that they have the right to dictate to everyone else how their faith should be treated. If your faith cannot withstand criticism, then it is time that you had a long and hard think about it, and decide whether it deserves to be a faith at all.
If you are easily offended then do not subscribe to Charlie, but to others including myself it presents plenty to amuse me while at the same time making me think quite deeply about many current issues - in fact, everything that satire is supposed to do.
Just my €0.02 worth...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Tuesday April 28 2015, @08:55PM
This is the best response on here. The correct response is bafflement and then education that CH is an equal opportunity satire shop.
What's going on, essentially, is that you actually see the breadth of CH's typical output. But from the perspective of the rest of the world, CH gets in the news basically exclusively regarding their Islam satires - usually the ones which depict Mohammed - plus the (absolutely insane) fallout from said drawings. That's it.
So when many people outside France see or hear about CH, we think that's essentially all they do. Because none of the rest of their stuff "newsworthy," or their other satire targets don't get so incensed they go and murder people over it, we're left seeing only these snapshots.
It says more about the target than about CH, in my humble opinion.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:02PM
Reminds me of the comedy central show South Park here in the states. Every so often they hit a hot button issue and a person or group gets all fired up because they are making fun of a person/group/religion. But for some reason many people don't realize they make fun of everyone equally.
The late Isaac Hayes left that show years ago because of their portrayal of Scientology. But he had no problem doing the voice of one of the characters prior to this when they were only satirizing Jews, Christians, Mormons, Islam... If you support free speech then support it. If you need to use "except" or "but" when describing your support, are you really in support of it?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:29PM
The Islamic Faith may be very special to those who follow it, but to everyone else it has no special status in the world.
Maybe it should, though. Like any other religion. This concept is called respect.
Maybe they should censor their Mohammed caricatures, as in put a black rectangle over the eyes? That would have actually make the drawings funnier and more critical, while at the same time not directly trampling on the feelings of a large part of their population.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cwix on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:36PM
Do you really think that would temper their anger? I highly doubt that.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:37PM
You only offer respect to someone just to temper her/his anger?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM
So if I am a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, can I have a ban on all pictures, references and jokes that contain colanders?
Why is it only pictures of Mohammed that need black rectangles over the eyes? Why not depictions of the Pope, Christ, and Buddah also? All are frequently depicted in CH without a murmur being heard. So what can atheists or those that chose a more obscure faith ask to be censored or treated differently? Or does the restriction only apply to faiths that someone has agreed should be recognised. Is there a list somewhere of religions that must be 'respected' as opposed to those that have no such protection? Have the Muslims approved it? How about Druids, those who believe in the Norse Gods, or those that believe that the wind and sun should be worshipped? What about people who have never heard of a specific faith? Are they also guilty of not showing the appropriate respect?
I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing. You can celebrate it in groups if you desire, but it is something specific to an individual. As such, it should not, indeed ought not, to affect anyone else at all. Charlie Hebdo doesn't mock any specific religion for the sake of it - but it does question why a caring deity demands the heads of those who who wish to laugh, dance or educate both sexes equally. It does question the extent of Catholic influence in France. It does question why the death of a number of athletes in a multiple helicopter crash was even possible in the name of 'entertainment' when everyone else involved travelled safely by road. The camera crews travelled by bus and car, why did the athletes have to be flying fast and low to get to the same place? And it does question why one religion demands a level of respect that is not afforded to, nor expected by, any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:55PM
> I firmly believe that faith, any faith, is a personal thing.
You can believe that, but it doesn't make it true for everybody. For many people, probably even a majority, their religion is part of their culture and culture is a shared experience defined by the community itself.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:34PM
It doesn't make my belief any less valid. There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture. Those cultures are free to follow whatever beliefs they wish, but they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion. This is the problem with the teachings of several popular religions - they specifically say that 'there is but one God, and you shall have no other Gods but Him'. The problem lies in deciding who 'He' actually is.
However, it is also said that one should never argue about religion, and so I'm off to my bed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:48PM
> It doesn't make my belief any less valid.
Sure, for you personally it does not. For everybody else who see the world differently it surely does.
> There is no extra rights given to religions that can claim they are based on a specific culture.
Religion is not based on culture, it is part of culture. Just like music, politics, art, food, etc are all part of culture too.
> they do not have the right to make demands of those whom are not followers of the same religion.
That's a phrasing that will lead to a conclusion that misses the broader issue. Every culture has norms. The question is do you want to respect a culture's norms or not? How about when your culture is the 800lb gorilla and their culture is the 95lb weakling? I am of the opinion that the 800lb gorilla has a duty to the 95lb weakling to give him more leeway than he would another 800lb gorilla.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:34AM
How much murder does your leeway allow for?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:40AM
We aren't talking about murder. We are talking about disrespect.
Peculiar that you would go there though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:55AM
"We" includes more than just yourself as one AC and janrinok. There's Geotti and one more AC in the form of myself, which is at least three individuals any way you slice it.
I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect". Lack of respect is a far cry from murder and in no way justification for it. When you claimed to allow for more leeway for minorities, it interested me to know just how much murder your leeway would allow for. After all, what will "demands [soylentnews.org]" accomplish if they aren't backed up by a threat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:31AM
> I personally couldn't care less about "disrespect".
Then go reply to someone else who is talking about what you care about.
Your conflation of the two unrelated issues suggests agenda pushing rather than truth seeking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @06:09AM
I read something that appeared to be deceptive and had a chance to ask for clarification, so I did. The issues are of course related (even within this thread), because you are proposing that "more leeway" should be given to religious minorities. Within context of this thread and article, this suggests you are stating that murder is something that should be given leeway. I asked how much leeway/murder you considered appriopriate for repugnant speech.
So... how much do you consider to be appropriate?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:56PM
Well, there is a distinction between recognized religions and sects.
But I do understand your point, and I guess the only way to address it is on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it was a potential affront (i.e. blasphemy [wikipedia.org]) to a *lot* of people [wikipedia.org] (though many of those probably care little about satire).
Let's also not forget that in Christian history, blasphemy was punished as well until, well, not too long ago [wikipedia.org] and depictions of Christian holy characters was controversial [wikipedia.org] as well.
In the end, I'm sure dialogue can solve many issues and yet still there will always be fringe groups of fanatics.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:23PM
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:27PM
I agree with all that you say and yet, I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin. That's my belief, of course, but it's quite a good foundation to build a society upon as far as I see it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:21AM
That is a phrase entirely hollow, without meaning. What rights? how far do they extend? Does everyone have the same rights? Does everyone have equality in those rights? Are all rights two-way or just some, or maybe none? Who decides the answers? Are there really any practical rights or only societal rights? Either way whence does rights come? Who decides that? and so on.
The phrase "I also believe that my right ends, where yours begin." is only indicative of a lack of overlap, which itself is wrong. Communal property, businesses, marriage assets, even free speech or the right to life. There are plenty of overlap for things generally agreed as being rights.
It is not just my belief, but my logical summation that any society of significant civility would have to begin with something at least rational. That sentiment is not.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 29 2015, @04:25PM
You call 1730 "not too long ago"?
"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 Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:14PM
As a matter of fact, in this context, I do. (My point being, give 'em some time, Muslim faith seems to develop at a faster rate, comparatively speaking.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:31AM
Would you provide some exposition on this?
I'm hard-pressed to even write a summary of a guess at your specific reasoning, as the logic for my abandoned draft post branched out almost exponentially regarding historical events, dates, times, and comparisons between both Christianity and Islam.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:04PM
Maybe it would be prudent to give the Muslim faith at least 610 years [wikipedia.org]
additionally, before comparing it to the modern Christian understanding?
Would you provide some exposition on this?
I'll provide my reasoning instead, though I'm unsure, whether you will accept this as a valid argument: if we take e.g. state secularism into account, and/or the tolerance towards other religions, I think they do develop at a faster rate, societally speaking. Just look at where Christian society was half a millennium ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:52PM
> Maybe it should, though. Like any other religion. This concept is called respect.
I am a strong supporter of these people withdrawing from the conference.
But I also think Hebdo has a right to do what they did, they just don't have a right to any respect for it. They gain respect for taking on the powerful, but they lose it for beating up on the disempowered and they especially lose respect for acting like the two are morally equivalent just because they have a superficial similarity of form.
> That would have actually make the drawings funnier and more critical, while at the same time not
> directly trampling on the feelings of a large part of their population.
The problem really isn't the technical depiction of Mo, its the shitting on the weak. Your "solution" would not go over any better, probably worse because it would be seen as even more insulting - just like you described.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:11PM
I'm not sure there is a solution for this, except through mutual understanding, which is probably nearly impossible to achieve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:01PM
Respect? Would you respect someone's religion if it was antisemitic and not only called for the genocide of that ethnicity but actually participates? Would you change your behavior to respect their religious right to commit war crimes?
If you have not gotten the hint, you are already defending those same people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:10PM
It is people like you who prove these people right about withdrawing.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:22PM
Would you care to explain to me how the war in demolition of Gaza in 2014 was not a genocide? Bitch please.
All you fanatics (regardless of religion) should take it out on each other on another planet and leave civilized people alone.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:20AM
Would you care to explain to me how the war in demolition of Gaza in 2014 was not a genocide?
And here we see the value of supporting free speech. It lets idiots reveal themselves to everyone else so well.
Genocide, I think this word does not mean what you think it means. To speak of genocide you really should be speaking of some violent act or series of acts that results in the death of a measurable percentage of a distinct People and the intent has to be the elimination of said People and not just a side effect of war, etc. So riddle me this, at what point has a measurable (and it really should be double digits to not pale in comparison to actual genocides) percentage of the population of Gaza been killed? And that is assuming you could refer to the population of Gaza as a 'People' and not just as a subset of pretty much the same Arab population in a hundred mile radius of that disputed territory. Unless you can first point out the first element of the crime, the killing part, we have no need to even laugh at your proposal of motive.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:11AM
It lets idiots reveal themselves to everyone else so well.
Great isn't it? I'll let it stand there and have you figure out yourself how you just did it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:41PM
Yeah, we should treat it as we treat Christianity. If Christians have to put up with this piece of art which was funded by the US government [wikipedia.org], then Muslims can put up with a drawing of their Prophet.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:15AM
Maybe then they should be the ones to decide?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:43AM
Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response for printing grossly offensive words on paper?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:46AM
[...] then Muslims can put up with a drawing of their Prophet. (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176334)
Maybe then they should be the ones to decide? (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176366)
Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response [...] (http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7223&cid=176386)
You fail at reading comprehension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @10:35AM
Oh, really? Here's my editorialized version of the conversation flow; feel free to point out where my lack of comprehension fits in:
AC1 [soylentnews.org]: "Christians have to put up with 'Piss Christ', so Muslims can put up with drawings of Mohammed."
Geotti [soylentnews.org]: "Perhaps Muslims should decide for themselves what they should have to put up with?"
Myself [soylentnews.org]: "Just how should Muslims decide to 'not put up with' repugnant speech? In the case at hand, some Muslims murdered many people in and nearby Charlie Hebdo's office; is that something you see in any way as an acceptable way to 'not put up with' repugnant speech?"
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:17PM
You do, because a (predominantly) Christian society with a (mostly, if not 100%) Christian government decided that it's ok to do caricatures of their idols/symbols/legends/whatever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 01 2015, @09:11AM
Which Muslim society with a Muslim government is being discussed? France? Of course not. The murders at Charlie Hebdo weren't committed with government permission, nor is France's government Islamic.
My comprehension appears solid and my original question remains valid: Muslims should be the ones to decide whether or nor murder is an acceptable response for printing grossly offensive words on paper? [soylentnews.org] I'll even give you a free "gimme" answer: Yes, but only within their own countries. Note that France is not such a country yet.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday May 01 2015, @11:34AM
No, the statement was that they should be the ones to decide, whether it's ok for depictions of their idols. And that's why you fail at reading comprehension, and I at communication, obviously.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 02 2015, @08:39AM
I think I see a source of communication difficulty here: what is the logical conclusion of a group who decides to use government to enforce any given decision? The logical conclusion is that government then enforces the decisions with enforcers that ultimately rely on lethal violence to make the governed obey the government.
That's why I keep drawing parallels between government enforcement and murder, because even though "murder" is a loaded term indicating a crime, my premise is that a killing over speech alone is indeed a crime (or should be, in any country considering itself civilized and/or free).
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @02:49PM
my premise is that a killing over speech alone is indeed a crime
And I agree with that premise. In fact, I'd say killing is always a crime, unless, maybe (and only in some cases) euthanasia.
Regarding our discussion here, you're conflating two different things, the right of someone to express their opinion freely, with absolute disregard for others and the reaction to such an expression.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday May 03 2015, @03:24PM
My premise places those two concepts together ([1]unlimited speech and [2]killing over such speech) because the combination applies to both the topic of the SN article and this thread. Writers of repugnant speech (among others) were killed in response to the repugnant speech. The killings were wrong because no one can justify killing a human over mere speech alone; in a free society where the government has lawful authority only from the consent of the governed, neither can the government limit speech because such limits are ultimately imposed with lethal force. (Evil slavery-based governments, of course, can impose as many restrictions on their citizens as they like.)
Both concepts being conflated act as a rebuttal to your earlier question [soylentnews.org] because, particularly in the case at Charlie Hebdo, murder was the result of some Muslims deciding that they didn't want to put up with someone else's speech.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Sunday May 03 2015, @05:17PM
The killings were wrong because no one can justify killing a human
You should have ended the sentence right there.
Both concepts being conflated act as a rebuttal to your earlier question because
I disagree. We're talking about different things here. (The majority of moderate) Muslims are the ones with the ultimate (moral) decision-authority about whether it's ok or not to do caricatures of their symbols. Whether the authors were killed or not has nothing to do with this statement. And if and when they decide that it's ok, any incident like this should be handled like any other murder (by fanatics).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:10PM
The morality of killing humans in circumstances beyond those involving speech is a side topic that will more than likely just distract from this discussion, so I won't reply to that point unless you insist. We seemed to agree that it is wrong to kill a human over matters of any sort of speech [soylentnews.org], so that should be the point of agreement to build upon.
Just how should Muslims go about enforcing such decisions [soylentnews.org]? What's an appropriate response by Muslim(s) who have decided that it's not okay to draw a picture of Mohummad's face, and a Frenchman draws just such a picture?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:02PM
What's an appropriate response [...]
I guess the appropriate response is to go to a court of law. And the enforcement does not have to be lethal, it can be incarceration or whatever else is seen as fair. Obviously, the parties to the conflict should go for a compromise (i.e. no death penalty, but no unsanctioned insults either), unless someone can come up with a win-win solution for this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:34PM
Leaving aside the matter of whether imprisonment is an acceptable response to speech, I'd already addressed your approach of using government to control speech, in a post linked in the first sentence of the paragraph containing my quote you used: this post [soylentnews.org] specifically points out the problem with government imposing restrictions on speech: all government enforcement is done with the threat of death.
Here's the quote again:
Now, you're free to advocate for speech controls in slave-based countries, or for a change of government away from freedom to slavery for the USA (granted, usurpers at all levels have already beaten you to the punch). I was shying away from focusing on the USA as an example, but after the recent event in Texas [soylentnews.org]...
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @09:06PM
I included "And the enforcement does not have to be lethal" specifically in response to your "all government enforcement is done with the threat of death" statement (which, btw, is incorrect, it's the threat of just force, not death.)
But what would you suggest, if you don't want to include the government in the process? Obviously not "just let 'em sort it out themselves," since that will only lead to rifts and strife.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @09:40PM
All government force rests upon the threat of death, to include the most trivial of fiat offenses: ignore a citation, receive a fine; ignore the fine, a court summons is issued; ignore the summons, an arrest warrant is issued; refuse to respond to enforcers with a warrant, and the enforcers will resort to violence; resist the initial violence, and the enforcers will use lethal force. That basic force continuum is true of crossing any government edict, from having a burned out tail light to committing murder. Free nations are those whose governments' just authority is derived from the consent of the governed. In a free nation, government can no more justly impose a penalty for speech than a random person on the street could; after all, that same random person is the source of a free government's authority [constitution.org]!
Thankfully, for Muslims who want to live in a slave nation under the rule of Islamic law, such countries and governments already exist. Saudi court gives death penalty to apostate ex-Muslim man [reuters.com]
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @10:10PM
I disagree. The government relies on force, not on deadly force. In your example you could as easily replace the killing part with "they taser (i.e. overwhelm) you and put you in jail".
So, what is your proposed solution to the CH dilemma, force the affected to just accept their fate without any recourse? I believe this would be unacceptable, so what would be a compromise if not court (ergo, government)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @10:30PM
I agree. What force is acceptable to use against the human source of even the most repugnant speech? Here's a thought experiment: if you and I were seated at a bar, and I took offense at your words, what would you agree to as a suitable level of force I should use against you for offending me via speech? After all, as I am wary of leaving unrepeated, the authority of a free nation's government is a mere derivative of the individual's.
Someone who takes offense at speech is not forced to do anything. Barring the rare mental or physical limitation, each human is personally responsible for his/her own actions. Someone who resorts to murder after taking offense from mere speech has made a choice to do so.
If a Muslim wishes to live under Islamic law and see those who insult Islam punished, there are existing Islamic-governed countries to emigrate to. If anyone resorts to force over another's speech in a free country, then depending on the amount of force used, that person has committed a crime ranging from battery to murder. (Or, as in the case in Texas, those who have made a choice to initiate force can be shot dead by the intended victims.)
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @11:46PM
What force is acceptable to use against the human source of even the most repugnant speech?
If this speech incites violence, it should be handled according to law. At least in Germany, incitement is a crime punishable by law, and, IMHO, as long as this law is used as intended by the government, i.e. to defend the peace, law and order of this society here (I know, I know, but please, let's keep this can of worms' lid closed. Suggest another term, if you must.), it's totally ok. Of course, it's probably impossible to draw a line.
I base this opinion on the premise that it is necessary to voluntarily limit one's freedoms in order to enjoy the benefits of society (e.g. "we're not alone in the world, so respect others"). And that's what kids learn, when they grow up: that they can't do everything they want - or to put it in different words: that there are consequences for one's actions.
Someone who takes offense at speech is not forced to do anything.
What I meant to say was "what is your proposed solution to the CH dilemma, leave the affected to their fate?"
Someone who resorts to murder after taking offense from mere speech has made a choice to do so.
Agreed and condemned.
If a Muslim wishes to live under Islamic law and see those who insult Islam punished, there are existing Islamic-governed countries to emigrate to.
What if the center of life is e.g. France, and that's where he/she was born, grew up with etc.
So let's say that he is a true Frenchman (of Muslim faith) and just wishes this rule to be respected?
The only (accepted/legal) way would be to lobby such a non-discrimination/respect law through the legislature, and that's totally ok.
So the real question is whether it was incitement on the part of CH (and it was to an extent: since the caricature is satirical, it is provocative in nature.) and where to draw the line.
Maybe the solution is like with drugs/arms/anything dangerous: government puts some limits and protections, but ultimately you're responsible yourself if you take too much of the wrong substance, shoot yourself, or e.g. anger the wrong people too much. After all this is a free society and we don't want a nanny state.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @12:46PM
"Incitement" is also against the law in the USA, thus neither it nor Germany are de facto free countries. I can't speak for Germany, but such laws in the USA are themselves legally inoperable [soylentnews.org]. A free country's government has no authority to limit speech in any way, because if I as an individual person do not have the right to assault or imprison you for even repugnant speech, neither can I delegate that authority to a government!
The concept of incitement does have grounding in practical reality ("people" as a group have a tendancy to act stupidly). Practical reality also shows that many people in a group will choose to drink themselves to death using alcohol, causing all manner of problems along the way to the grave. Attempting to address these things with the force of government in the USA produced Prohibition [wikipedia.org] , a disasterous trainwreck. In short, free people must be able to make stupid choices; else, they are not free people. Where such stupidity infringes on the property ownership of others (e.g. a victim's human body and/or other possessions), the authority of the victim can be delegated to a government for use in seeking justice rather than presenting the appearance of mere revenge.
The logical foundation of laws against "incitement" is that some people simply are not responsible for their own actions. This is an extremely demeaning and dehumanizing stance to take: "you just can't help yourself, so government is here to help you". Barring the rare mental or physical limitation, each individual is responsible for his/her own actions. Otherwise, such a non-responsible person could commit crimes of murder, robbery, assault, etc., and be completely unaccountable beyond that of the danger presented by what amounts to having a wild animal near other humans. Once discovered, such a non-responsible criminal cannot be trusted to roam free again, and thus needs to be either imprisoned for life (an expensive undertaking), or merely "put down" for pity or convenience.
Thus, by supporting the view that "incitement" is a crime, and that certain types of humans are not responsible for their own actions, the logical conclusion is that such non-responsible humans could be exterminated enmasse as a safety or convenience measure. In context, that appears to be an unprovoked massacre of Muslims! I cannot support that, and I am certain neither do you. The only alternative, then, is to treat each individual as being responsible for their own actions, thus rejecting the concept of incitement as a crime.
Yes.
This is not to say that the affected have no legitmate recourse left to them. Such recourse in a free country includes using "freedom of association" to disassociate from the speaker and supporters of repugnant speech. This freedom is used constantly: think of an off-putting person you might know, perhaps a loud-mouthed jerk. There is freedom to decline to invite that jerk to social gatherings; to refuse attendance to the same if the jerk is present; to boycott the jerk's business or to speak to the jerk's boss about how you as a customer feel about one of the boss' employees (e.g. the Adria Richards brouhaha [wordpress.com]); to refuse service to the jerk at your business; or to show direct support for others targetted by the jerk (e.g. Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day [wikipedia.org]); ultimately, to use tools of free people including speech to communicate to uninvolved listeners why they should also choose to have nothing to do with the jerk.
The above actions take a lot of work. However, that is the lot in life for free people, as the alternative is just one shade or another of literal slavery. Slaves can live very comfortable lives, as evidenced in many developed countries. Freedom has a cost, and part of that cost is the inability to do things the "easy way" by punching a stupid jerk in the face or outsourcing that initiation of violence to government enforcers.
In countries where governments rule by sheer force, that is a viable approach. I argue it is still an extremely dangerous approach, as it creates a new special class of people that can wield the violence of government against others. Such an approach is illegal - literally criminal - for governments of free nations who derive their authority by delegation from the governed. For example: if I cannot personally wield violence against you for disrespecting me, neither can I delegate the use of such violence to a government.
Such solutions are acceptable in nations ruled by governments with unlimited power (or self-limited power, ultimately the same thing). Such solutions are not legal in free nations, such as the USA. The fact that the USA has such laws on the books is just an example of illegal laws which have already been recognized as having no legal power; enforcement of such non-laws are done with the same authority as a mugger's: "do this, or I kill you". The mere existence of such "limits and protections" on "dangerous" things is what defines a nanny state.
The idea that some groups of people are better off not being free is not new. Entire books were written to propose the idea that American slaves were better off as chattel property [unc.edu], a view which I reject in whole.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @02:26PM
I partly agree with the first part of what you say. Some points, which were a thorn to my eye are:
The logical foundation of laws against "incitement" is that some people simply are not responsible for their own actions. [...] The only alternative, then, is to treat each individual as being responsible for their own actions, thus rejecting the concept of incitement as a crime.
While this seems to make sense, it is also necessary to consider that some people are well-versed in rhetorics, dramaturgy, NLP (and other "tricks"), and some of these people are (or can be) malicious in nature. Other people don't have the time/skill/will/etc. to pick apart statements by such "agents of chaos," however it would be unfair to say that they are fully responsible for being gullible in the face of professionals, who spend all their time perfecting their skills of manipulation. These people perform lots of useful functions in (or even form the backbone of) our society and their wishes can not be simply ignored. Thus, again, drawing the line is not a simple matter and there has to be a better solution than a categorical denial of their integrity.
if I cannot personally wield violence against you for disrespecting me, neither can I delegate the use of such violence to a government.
And yet, (and with all the moral dilemmas associated with it,) sometimes communities and societies may choose violence in certain circumstances. It is also a matter of historical practicability that we can decide as a people that certain rules should be followed or not, thus society > individual (in, probably, most cases) and can decide to e.g. banish someone [let's not resort to physical violence here].
The mere existence of such "limits and protections" on "dangerous" things is what defines a nanny state.
It should be noted that we are far from the peak of our development a a race. Contexts and circumstances keep changing and the codex of laws should adapt. Just as you don't give a child full autonomy from the get go, so it might be prudent to look for similar ways to let a population evolve.
While I don't know and have trouble coming up with specific proposals on handling above evolution, I believe it is safe to say that being categorical is often merely a compromise, but not a solution. We could, as a race, together, work towards finding acceptable norms, however. Maybe (and with the help of the internet), we could further the understanding of ourselves and this dialogue and a previously unprecedented scale and climb the evolutionary ladder. Maybe something like tangible karma, but with mechanisms in place for even the ones without merit to initiate change.
Less related to the previous, but possibly tangentially interesting:
Freedom has a cost, and part of that cost is the inability to do things the "easy way" by punching a stupid jerk in the face or outsourcing that initiation of violence to government enforcers.
On the other side of the spectrum, people who can't behave (i.e. respect others) are a bit akin to parasites, as they create internal tensions and strife, and maybe should be dealt with in some way?
Such recourse in a free country includes using "freedom of association" to disassociate from the speaker and supporters of repugnant speech.
Yes, but what to do about those, who abuse their position in society, by using mechanisms such as mass media (Mr. Murdoch, I'm looking at the likes of you) to mould public opinion in the way they see fit? What could a minority do about that?
PS: Thank you for the constructive and interesting discussion! We might even get somewhere :)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @04:15PM
I suspect this is the crux of our disagreement. In most of the world today, government is the master of the people. (In point of fact, in all of the world today... it's just that for at least for the USA, such usurpation of mastership is literally criminal [soylentnews.org].)
I really like the idea of freedom, so please be understanding of my examples' zealous focus on the only free nation I'm aware of: the USA. The USA was brought into legal existence by the Declaration of Independence, which explicitly stated that its government "[derives] their just powers from the consent of the governed [constitution.org]". The first version of the USA was totally done away with by either the Articles of Confederation (1777-1781), or by the current version of the USA: the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was created at the Philadelphia Convention [wikipedia.org], by elected delegates sent by individual voters. Thus, an individual voter delegated his/her authority to a delegate, and the delegate in turn used his/her authority to create the Constitution. Thus, all authority in question being delegated, government's authority cannot exceed the authority of its original source: an individual human.
The practical application is that laws restricting speech in any way are unlawful to impose upon the USA, and any that have been passed by a legislature are in fact legally void and do not exist [soylentnews.org]. To wit, in the USA, the people are the masters of government, and the unalienable rights of the individual are greater than society!
That is essentially what I suggest as a response [soylentnews.org] to speakers and supporters of repugnant speech, except I use the term "disassociation" instead of banishment. (Banishment [reference.com] implies forcing the banished to leave a given area.) Banishment is perfectly acceptable for use on private property, of course. Freedom of speech does not give authority to a speaker to seize and use the property of others as a means to voice the speech; it merely prohibits government from restricting or punishing speech.
That raises questions that branch out into a huge area of philosophy on society and governance which ultimately faces the problem of "who watches the watchers? [wikipedia.org]" A person is either free, or they are not free; there is no "kind of free" middle ground. A free society keeps an eye on the jerks through the use of "freedom of association" and private societies. A modern-day analog to such private societies is the Underwriters Laboratories [wikipedia.org]. The UL basically tests toasters to make sure that it is highly improbable that a given type of toaster will blow up in the user's face. No toaster manufactuerer is forced to submit their product to UL for testing, but customers who know about the UL tend to highly prefer UL-approved products over others. The same principle can be applied to ethics, the private side of right-and-wrong where enforcement with violence of law is itself wrong.
In almost all cases, a listener to such speech makes a choice to listen. Such is the consequence of being a free person: you can choose to make stupid choices. Choices do have consequences, and if a man chooses to listen to enough neuro-linguistic programming [wikipedia.org] that he convinces himself that murder is okay, then he will likely face the consequences of his string of choices that ultimately began back at the choice to listen to hate-filled NLP. In fact, I am of the opinion that NLP and similar techniques are a major problem in the USA, particularly in the unlawful government-controlled school system.
(I, too, appreciate your thoughtful participation in this discussion. I hope that we can at least identify the foundation of our disagreement and the reasoning behind each position, if not come to actual agreement.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @02:14AM
What if someone decides the words you write are offensive? By your reckoning, should you not let them decide and you respond by ceasing to post?
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Wednesday April 29 2015, @03:48AM
I don't usually actively go out and provoke someone, knowingly, about a sensitive topic, so I guess an excuse would be ok, but to answer your question, I'd log out and post as an AC ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:30PM
You actively go out and speak knowing that you will, inevitably, offend someone. The difference is minimal.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday May 04 2015, @05:05PM
You actively go out and speak knowing that you will, inevitably, offend someone. The difference is minimal.
Indeed; and yet, this is how our society operates. There is a difference between doing something on purpose and accidentally and I believe it is considerable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:33AM
That's only for convenience. The people being offended by your heinous words often don't care that you didn't intend to do so. If I weren't a supporter of free speech, I'd advocate having your arrested.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday May 05 2015, @09:01AM
I'd advocate having your arrested.
You'd be welcome to do so ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:43PM
> I am also a regular reader of Charlie Hebdo. I really cannot understand the problem here. CH satirizes all religions equally
That would be totally fine if all religions in France were even close to equal. But surely you know they are not. Hollande is a secular catholic, Sarkozy was catholic, Chirac was catholic, Mitterrand was catholic, etc. You see where I am going with this...
Its like a bully saying, "Why are you mad that I punch kindergärtners? I punch everybody equally hard."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:33PM
LMAO your analogy is fucked up.
To start with it should be why are all of the catholics punching me.
Second off kindergarteners implies youth, and a minority of people who cannot defend themselves. Muslims are no world minority. And they do not need anyone to defend them.
To fix your fucked up analogy:
Q: Why are all the people not in my religion punching me? A: Because you asked for it by threatening and killing them.
Follow up:
Q: How do I keep them from punching me? A: By getting the moderate muslims to get out there and speak up against the violence and threats from their conservative brethren.
If the moderates were out there in the streets calling for an end to the extremism then you would not hear near the amount of crap about their religion. Until the moderates are the loudest voice in their religion they just need to suck it up because the only thing westerners are hearing from muslims is that we are infidels and that we should all be killed. And I refuse to show any respect for anyone that either claims I should be killed, or would tolerate those in their own religion claiming that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:40PM
> To start with it should be why are all of the catholics punching me.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with that. Are you claiming Hebdo are catholics?
> Muslims are no world minority.
In france they are especially marginalized. Consigned to 'banlieue' ghettos with little opportunity compare to the population in general.
> If the moderates were out there in the streets calling for an end to the extremism
The condemnation is a constant drumbeat. [muhajabah.com] It is you who aren't listening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @10:57PM
You did not read the parent post. He claimed that Muslims were being held back by the Catholic leadership in France.
Yes and Christians are marginalized in a number of countries.
I am listening. they are not talking loud enough. I see on the news thousands of them protesting the cartoons drawn by CH. then I watch the thousands of them celebrate the attack against CH. Yet I see no muslims out there defending others right to think what they want, and I do not see thousands in the streets condemning the actions of the extremists.
Muslims have a responsibility to clean up their own fucking religion. Until they do so, I refuse to show any respect for their religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @11:07PM
> You did not read the parent post. He claimed that Muslims were being held back by the Catholic leadership in France.
I wrote the parent post and I made no such claim. I said that in France not all religions are equal, I said nothing about one religion holding back another religion.
> I am listening. they are not talking loud enough. I see on the news thousands of them protesting the cartoons drawn by CH.
No you are only hearing what you want to hear. Yeah they are protesting the cartoons just like thousands of Americans thought "Freedom Fries" was good thing.
> Yet I see no muslims out there defending others right to think what they want,
I gave you links to literally thousands saying exactly that.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:21AM
CH satirizes all religions equally
I don't read Charlie, and I'd never even heard of it until this whole business. So I could be wrong, but it seems to me like they don't treat all religions equally - they don't hit Islam nearly as hard as Catholicism. Stuff like this [google.com] really puts the Mohammed cover in perspective.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:45AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @09:33PM
Dear Peter Carey, Michael Ondaatje, Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi;
Is it easy to reflect on the hypocrisy of your claimed support of free expression while safe in the knowledge that no paramilitaries are going to turn up outside your office and murder you for expressing your opinions?
Thanks,
The Internet
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:18AM
I never did read Charlie Hebdo, never bought a single issue, never saw a single issue except in photographs, but long ago I contributed to/was published in a slightly similar anarchist publication elsewhere which wasn't/isn't primarily visual nor satirical (although it could be intentionally funny). I did use to read the Intercept for a short while after it started.
The Intercept might be more like enemies if they end up driving people away from important issues. Right after the CH attack, the Intercept started pushing exactly the same kind of rather strange, “ideologically pure”, and “acrobatic” views as those who now oppose this PEN award. Rearranging the world to fit ideology is an old exercise that always ends up a failure no matter who does it. The Intercept (and in particular Greenwald) aren't necessarily acting in bad faith, and while I disagree about some of the tactics they use/choose it is a choice that is theirs to make (and for that matter they probably don't feel like they have much choice), but they lost my interest.
It might occasionally be mildly interesting but normally I don't want to read what amounts to either apologies for or hand-waving away of terrorism based on crypto-racist “reasoning” (which is far more racist than anything labeled racist by “anti-racists”) like how it might or must (heavily implied in the articles) have been a false flag because the CH attackers were “professional” (professional what?) and well equipped and efficient as if any of that is supposedly inconceivable for anyone with origins from the near East or Africa or anywhere. Same critique goes to any 9-11 “truthers” out there. However it does bring some clarity to why they always go on about institutionalized racism, ingrained racism, casual racism etc. as these people must be so full of it themselves that they automatically see it everywhere and assume everyone else is as obsessively racist as they themselves are and completely blind to the fact that most people simply don't give a shit about color.
What those opposing the PEN award are communicating between the lines is that they support either terrorism or at least no freedom of speech as long as it is against people they think deserve it, i.e. people who don't agree with them.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:44AM
> Rearranging the world to fit ideology is an old exercise that always ends up a failure no matter who does it.
> ...
> What those opposing the PEN award are communicating between the lines is that they support either terrorism
> or at least no freedom of speech as long as it is against people they think deserve it, i.e. people who don't agree with them.
Irony.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 29 2015, @12:59AM
Maybe. Please explain your point of view in more detail as I'm too dumb to infer it.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 29 2015, @01:44AM
Clearly, because your entire post is just one big circular argument where your conclusion was your premise all along.
That you were unable to recognize that when writing it suggests you'll never be able to recognize it, instead you'll just cling to your premise as being self-evidently true. It wouldn't be the first.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday April 29 2015, @07:22AM
That's fine by me, I wasn't aware that I was making an argument at all and if you can't or don't want to explain your perceived irony and/or tautology then I can't be expected to.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday April 29 2015, @08:07PM
This sounds like it's coming straight from an armchair-PC person.
"must be seen"? How about you go and ask them?
Or are you worried your preconceived notions would fall apart, leaving you without righteousness in your indignation?
Quit trying to make some politically correct point over their backs. France is not the USA, and their standards are not US standards.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 30 2015, @05:53PM
145 PEN Writers (Thus Far) Have Objected to the Charlie Hedbo Award - Not Just 6 [firstlook.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]