View Poll Results: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime?

Voters
219. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    7 3.20%
  • No

    209 95.43%
  • I don't know.

    3 1.37%
Page 24 of 72 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 720

Thread: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime? [W:636]

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I don't know. If in the video, the guy says "I hope this pisses off Muslims".

  2. #232
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Clearly, this movie was meant to stir up more dirt between Muslims and Jews. If any piece of "art" was created to incite hate and possibly violence, it's the "Innocence of Muslims". So again, should this guy be punished?
    I don't know if you're trying to corner me or not. Incitement to riot or violence is not protected speech. That's not just my opinion. That's the truth.

    However, in my opinion, it seems difficult to prove that this guy was advocating violence. If, however, it can be proved that he was urging others to riot or commit violence, then yes, he should be punished.

  3. #233
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Clearly, this movie was meant to stir up more dirt between Muslims and Jews. If any piece of "art" was created to incite hate and possibly violence, it's the "Innocence of Muslims". So again, should this guy be punished?
    No, he should not. Someone making a video that insults Muslims is no more a violation of free speech, than one of us calling them backwards, stone age, Neanderthals, on the internet. Intent has nothing to do with it, nor particular art-form or format.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #234
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    I don't know if you're trying to corner me or not. Incitement to riot or violence is not protected speech. That's not just my opinion. That's the truth.

    However, in my opinion, it seems difficult to prove that this guy was advocating violence. If, however, it can be proved that he was urging others to riot or commit violence, then yes, he should be punished.
    *shrug*

    You said that only art that is created to incite violence should be restricted. This art ended in violence. So should the producer be punished?

    I'm asking how your opinion would operate in a real-life scenario. Should there be a court trial to determine if a piece of art caused violence?

  5. #235
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    *shrug*

    You said that only art that is created to incite violence should be restricted. This art ended in violence. So should the producer be punished?

    I'm asking how your opinion would operate in a real-life scenario. Should there be a court trial to determine if a piece of art caused violence?
    Just because this "art" ended in violence doesn't necessarily mean that the person behind the art advocated for this violence or wanted this violence to occur.

    An example of inciting a riot would be something like this: If at a protest someone told the crowd to throw rocks at police officers.

  6. #236
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,052

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ashurbanipal View Post
    It's not intended to be an analogy. It's intended to show that intent can be, and should be, discerned when deciding on many types of crime. There was an objection that seemed to be based on the notion that we would overburden our epistemic faculties to try to determine intent. I was pointing out that this is almost certainly wrong, and moreover, it is necessary to determine intent to avoid perpetrating miscarriages of justice.

    Again...I haven't been discussing the film that has led to such furor. I've been discussing general principles, abstracted from specific situations. I think there are other reasons to suppose that incitement to violence should be considered a crime.
    Fair enough, my point is thread is:
    Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime?
    And the answer has to be NO a resounding un equivocal NO!
    If the thread was "should incitement to violence be a crime" the answer is yes, There are limits on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is the famous example people like to use. I do not see insulting someone as incitement to violence but saying so and so doesn't deserve to live and should be massacred ASAP, isn't an insult it is more of a threat and or incitement. Yes labguage can be used in Hyperbole so context has to be regarded. Example watchign a football game and yelling at your side to "rip his head off" (Waterboy refernce) is not really gonna be taken as a serious incitemnt to kill someone.
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

  7. #237
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Just because this "art" ended in violence doesn't necessarily mean that the person behind the art advocated for this violence or wanted this violence to occur.
    Right. So how does someone determine intent? If the actions of the audience can't be considered, then that only leaves the intent of the speaker as the crux of judgement.

    How does your original statement play out in real life? How do we measure the intent of a speaker in order to prevent violence? Why isn't this film considered violence-inciting?

    Everything about it and surrounding it is blatantly meant to be as offensive as possible. But you said we can't tell the artist's intentions. So why are you insisting that the crux of judgement be on the speaker's intent?

  8. #238
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Absolutely not.

    If you restrict free speech because people have made it their intent to CHOOSE to commit attrocities if said speech is done, then you essentially create a situation and an acknowledgement that free speech is only free if others chooes not to be upset about it. If you ban disaparaging action towards Muhammed because Muslims on the other side of the world may CHOOSE to commit attrocities then you invite any other group to choose "We don't want [x] speech done, so if we hear it we'll riot and kill people" in hopes of getting that banned as well.

    There is a distinct difference between making a statement that one has a reasonable belief that a reasonable individual will take a reasonable course of action in relation to that speech....and making a statement which one has at best a reasonable belief that UNREASONABLE individuals will take UNREASONABLE action. The people taking action that ultimately causes harm are doing so in a way that is justifiable and reasonable given the situation as they understand it.

    Screaming fire in a theater illicites a reasonable response of attempting to leave the area. That response is reasonable because it is reasonable to expect individuals to seek to protect their lives. Said response, in a large crowded area, can cause a panic and a mob type situation where people become injured. You can't really blame the people acting in a mob mentality at that moment, because they are acting in a reasonable fashion to the threat of a fire in a confined space. The blame in that instance gets placed onto the person taking an action that incites them into that reasonable action.

    That is not the case with these situations. There is NOTHING rational about bombing someone over a cartoon or rioting and killing people over a movie. Nothing. The blame in this instance absolutely lies on the part of those CHOOSING to act in the irrational way towards a movie, and specifically in an irrational way that is damaging to others. While the film maker can be blamed for poor judgement or even reckless speech, it absolutely should not be ILLEGAL speech simply because others CHOOSE to act in a horrible way on their own volition.

    There absolutely should be nothing illegal about that speech in terms of here in the United States. This, sadly, is one of those issues where we pay a cost for our right to free speech in some fashion.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Absolutely not.

    If you restrict free speech because people have made it their intent to CHOOSE to commit attrocities if said speech is done, then you essentially create a situation and an acknowledgement that free speech is only free if others chooes not to be upset about it. If you ban disaparaging action towards Muhammed because Muslims on the other side of the world may CHOOSE to commit attrocities then you invite any other group to choose "We don't want [x] speech done, so if we hear it we'll riot and kill people" in hopes of getting that banned as well.

    There is a distinct difference between making a statement that one has a reasonable belief that a reasonable individual will take a reasonable course of action in relation to that speech....and making a statement which one has at best a reasonable belief that UNREASONABLE individuals will take UNREASONABLE action. The people taking action that ultimately causes harm are doing so in a way that is justifiable and reasonable given the situation as they understand it.

    Screaming fire in a theater illicites a reasonable response of attempting to leave the area. That response is reasonable because it is reasonable to expect individuals to seek to protect their lives. Said response, in a large crowded area, can cause a panic and a mob type situation where people become injured. You can't really blame the people acting in a mob mentality at that moment, because they are acting in a reasonable fashion to the threat of a fire in a confined space. The blame in that instance gets placed onto the person taking an action that incites them into that reasonable action.

    That is not the case with these situations. There is NOTHING rational about bombing someone over a cartoon or rioting and killing people over a movie. Nothing. The blame in this instance absolutely lies on the part of those CHOOSING to act in the irrational way towards a movie, and specifically in an irrational way that is damaging to others. While the film maker can be blamed for poor judgement or even reckless speech, it absolutely should not be ILLEGAL speech simply because others CHOOSE to act in a horrible way on their own volition.

    There absolutely should be nothing illegal about that speech in terms of here in the United States. This, sadly, is one of those issues where we pay a cost for our right to free speech in some fashion.
    Truth, brother, truth.

    The idea that the artist holds even one ounce of responsibility for the actions of the audience is insane to me.

  10. #240
    Sage
    Quag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,052

    Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Absolutely not.

    If you restrict free speech because people have made it their intent to CHOOSE to commit attrocities if said speech is done, then you essentially create a situation and an acknowledgement that free speech is only free if others chooes not to be upset about it. If you ban disaparaging action towards Muhammed because Muslims on the other side of the world may CHOOSE to commit attrocities then you invite any other group to choose "We don't want [x] speech done, so if we hear it we'll riot and kill people" in hopes of getting that banned as well.

    There is a distinct difference between making a statement that one has a reasonable belief that a reasonable individual will take a reasonable course of action in relation to that speech....and making a statement which one has at best a reasonable belief that UNREASONABLE individuals will take UNREASONABLE action. The people taking action that ultimately causes harm are doing so in a way that is justifiable and reasonable given the situation as they understand it.

    Screaming fire in a theater illicites a reasonable response of attempting to leave the area. That response is reasonable because it is reasonable to expect individuals to seek to protect their lives. Said response, in a large crowded area, can cause a panic and a mob type situation where people become injured. You can't really blame the people acting in a mob mentality at that moment, because they are acting in a reasonable fashion to the threat of a fire in a confined space. The blame in that instance gets placed onto the person taking an action that incites them into that reasonable action.

    That is not the case with these situations. There is NOTHING rational about bombing someone over a cartoon or rioting and killing people over a movie. Nothing. The blame in this instance absolutely lies on the part of those CHOOSING to act in the irrational way towards a movie, and specifically in an irrational way that is damaging to others. While the film maker can be blamed for poor judgement or even reckless speech, it absolutely should not be ILLEGAL speech simply because others CHOOSE to act in a horrible way on their own volition.

    There absolutely should be nothing illegal about that speech in terms of here in the United States. This, sadly, is one of those issues where we pay a cost for our right to free speech in some fashion.
    I think this is the best post in this thread so far!
    A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
    Winston Churchill



    A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.
    Winston Churchill

Page 24 of 72 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •