• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

  • Total voters
    186
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

LaMidRighter said:
You hit a bullseye here Pinkie. If protected speech which falls under the SLAPS test(Serious Literary Artistic Political Scientific) and has the highest scope of protection can be violated "for safety" it opens the door for further violations. Any speech out of context can potentially offend someone, it isn't even close to worth banning speech because it offends someone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Freedom of speech is really the closet thing to an "all or nothing" issue that we have. Censorship and the punishment of unpopular ideas is like a slowly rising ooze that needs constant vigilance to keep under control. Thank god for the ACLU, huh?? :cool:

People in this country do NOT have a right to NOT be offended.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

zstep18 said:
Well, it's hard to prove that his intent was to incite violence.
Click to expand...

Then how can that be a prerequisite in your position? You said you are only in favor of punishment if the creator KNOWINGLY did something to incite violence. How would YOU prove that?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

RadicalModerate said:
Then how can that be a prerequisite in your position? You said you are only in favor of punishment if the creator KNOWINGLY did something to incite violence. How would YOU prove that?
Click to expand...

I don't know. If in the video, the guy says "I hope this pisses off Muslims".
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

zstep18 said:
I don't know. If in the video, the guy says "I hope this pisses off Muslims".
Click to expand...

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

Perhaps this will help to shed some light on it.....

CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) — While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.

In America, there's nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie's treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom. "The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don't appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world," said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University's School of Law in Orange, Calif.

The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.

But Nakoula's case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film "Innocence of Muslims" has had such far-reaching and violent implications.

"Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff," wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. "But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution."

Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with "insulting religion," a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of "upsetting national security," which carries a life sentence.

In America, the government can't even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation.....snip~

Free speech, religion clash over anti-Muslim film - Yahoo! Movies

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

RadicalModerate said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

RadicalModerate said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

zstep18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

RadicalModerate said:
*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?
Click to expand...

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

ashurbanipal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

zstep18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Truth, brother, truth.

The idea that the artist holds even one ounce of responsibility for the actions of the audience is insane to me.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think this is the best post in this thread so far!
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

RadicalModerate said:
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?
Click to expand...

The crux of the judgment is absolutely on the speaker's intent. The artist obviously is intending to be offensive. That is not the same thing as intending to advocate violence.

I already told you a real life scenario where this would play out. The example was this: If an individual at a protest or rally, decided to tell the crowd to start throwing rocks at police. In that example, the individual is clearly advocating violence and urging others to commit violence.

The burden of proof lies heavily on those who wish to restrict freedom of speech.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

ashurbanipal said:
I don't think the case is quite so bad. We try to infer intent all the time in other situations in order to determine the extent of a particular crime. For example: a man fires a gun through a wall into a room in which he knows another man is standing. The other man is killed. We have at least four possibilities:

1) The gun went off accidentally, and the man therefore had no intent to cause harm.

2) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger thought the bullet wouldn't go through the drywall, or some other demonstrably absurd belief.

3) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger only intended to scare the other man.

4) The gun was fired deliberately, and the man who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other man.
Click to expand...

One massively problematic issue with your analogy.

A bullet is not capable of making it's own judgements. A bullet does not control it's own actions. A bullet does not have conciousness and decision making ability. The bullet is under the control and direction of the individual firing it. The BULLET is doing the harm.

In the case of the movie, that is not the case.

In your analogy the film maker would be the shooter.

The bullet would be the movie.

However, the issue is, the move did not kill anyone. The movie did not force a riot. The movie simply spoke words and showed pictures.

PEOPLE, viewing the movie, made a concious CHOICE to act in an uncivilized at best, and dispicable at worst, manner.

The film maker did not force them, did not coerce them, did not make them act in that manner. They viewed something or simply HEARD about something...again, on their own accord...and then on their own accord decided to act in a harmful way.

Your analogy does not fit the situation one bit, because it hinges on the notion that the action directly taken by the individual....firing the bullet / making the video....is directly responsable for the negative action that occurs next....killing someone. That's a false analogy because the bullet simply acts in a defined manner due to the law of physics and the action of the individual...PEOPLE make their own choices.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

zstep18 said:
The crux of the judgment is absolutely on the speaker's intent. The artist obviously is intending to be offensive. That is not the same thing as intending to advocate violence.

I already told you a real life scenario where this would play out. The example was this: If an individual at a protest or rally, decided to tell the crowd to start throwing rocks at police. In that example, the individual is clearly advocating violence and urging others to commit violence.

The burden of proof lies heavily on those who wish to restrict freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

But the topic isn't about a riot. It's about Muhammad and whether or not disparaging speech about faith or other sensitive topic's can be restricted. Telling a crowd of Black Bloc teenagers to throw rocks at cars is not even in the same league as making a anti-Muslim film and people freaking out about it.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

RadicalModerate said:
But the topic isn't about a riot.
Click to expand...

Um, I thought this was about whether this anti-Muslim film qualifies as incitement of a riot?
 
X Factor said:
Simple question (I hope it's obvious I mean the Prophet Muhammed, I just couldn't include that in the title due to space limitations)?

Edit: Crap, I hit "go" before I had a chance to post the poll (and it won't let me delete my OP, so I can try again). Can a poll still be added?

Edit2: Ok, I figured it out.
Click to expand...
Speech that is directed to inciting violence and likely to incite violence can already subject the speaker to criminal penalties, under a case decided over 40 years ago. Whether this video and those like it qualify is questionable, but at the same time it wouldn't be such a huge leap to extend that precedent to cases like this one. The freedom of speech is one of our most cherished protections, but like all other constitutional rights, there are limits which come into play when the safety of innocent third parties is put at risk.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No, and our "government" didn't make the film. The stupid film was made by an individual who hated Muslims, because he was mad at an X girlfriend, or some kind of crap. His entire agenda was to increase chaos and malice in the world. Then, we find out the filmmaker was on parole and not supposed to be on the internet, for reasons separate from the latest stuff he pulled.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

If I made a disparaging film about Genghis Khan and Mongols everywhere rioted, would the same people so terrified by Islamist terrorism that they would surrender any of our rights to it be telling me I had no right to make the film?
 
Krhazy said:
it wouldn't be such a huge leap to extend that precedent to cases like this one. .
Click to expand...

Complete bull. It would be an enormous leap to extend this precedent simply because you want to appease Islamists by making us more like them.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

So we are a society that should take our own God out of public discourse but protect someone else's because we fear his followers (because that sure does seem to be the left-wing position)? LOL
 
Gardener said:
Complete bull. It would be an enormous leap to extend this precedent simply because you want to appease Islamists by making us more like them.
Click to expand...
Balancing the rights of individuals doesn't make us more like third-world religious dictatorships. That is indeed complete bull. What would make us more like them is championing the instigation of violence over practicality, reason, and human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom