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

Higgins86 said:

Hey I dont really like it either but our Govs seem to want to maintain diplomatc and economic ties in the region so we are going to have to give somewhere else we risk more lives etc.

Click to expand...

Higgs, you're a good dude. That said I know that Europe's adaption to the problems of the WW's was to limit speech said to contribute to it, no one in their right mind would condone personally rhetorical choices which single out people on the basis of race, religion, sex, or anything else which balkanises human beings. This said even the speech we detest the most if protected must be shielded from government interference within very specific boundaries. The only time we should limit speech is for fraud, incitement to riot/violence, defamation, and only things which endanger the public under normal circumstances. I do not think that a diplomatic problem caused by a small minority is enough to limit speech which passes the SLAPS test under any circumstance.

While I think most of us realize that the video in question was completely full of ****, the problem comes from it's political origins, SLAPS(Serious Literary Artistic Political Scientific) exists for a reason, this is to advance thought.........whether well or poorly founded towards the public discourse which then becomes our duty to accept or reject it. This work, which has been largely dismissed as a minority opinion is protected, we as a public must accept that the right to produce the work does exist, then we must understand that it is flawed, and those that would attack us using it as a shield need to be dealt with. Exchange of ideas is so critical that the founders decided that things antithetical to that which they believed in must be protected, this speaks volumes to just how important human communication was to them.

jamesrage said:

Seeing how those terrorist and other Islamofascist do not show respect towards other religions and beliefs then they have no room bitching when people do not show any respect to their religion.

Click to expand...

Moderate muslims helped me to better understand my Catholic faith, the people who reacted to this minor work with violence did not. Islamofascists must be defeated, the muslim religion however is perfectly entitled to live amongst the rest of civilzation with our blessings.

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

haymarket said:

I think a hecklers veto is more of a situation where a small minority of people - perhaps only one - can make life miserable for everybody else ala the heckler at a club who nobody paid to see and is wrecking the show for all the other customers.

Click to expand...

You can think that, if you want; just as you can think that the Moon is made of paper maché, or that an automobile is powered by tiny unicorns running in a hamster wheel, or whatever other ridiculous thing you'd like to believe. Doesn't make it true.

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

Gardener said:

Why do you [Haymarket] despise the liberal notion of right to free speech and why do you wish to accommodate the demands of extreme right totalitarians?

Click to expand...

It isn't the “liberal” notion of free speech that he opposes. Back in the day when those on the left were the most vocal advocates of “free speech”, it was about such things as pornography, obscenity, and crude language; not about genuine expression of controversial beliefs and opinions. It's those of us on the right who have always been the champions of genuine free speech, consisting of the freedom to hold and express whatever beliefs we will, regardless of how much someone else may disagree.

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

Gardener said:

So, let me get this right -- some idiot fundie clerics thousands of miles away who have an agenda to create a totalitarian theocratic Islamist state get their primitive, inbred followers to riot over some stupid, obscure movie few of them have even seen, and so your [Haymarket's] response is to want to make us more like them by eliminating our ability to speak freely, thereby helping to fulfil their objective.

and you think I'm the chump? :doh

Click to expand...

Really, it gets down to this — where do we want the power to be that determines what rights will be upheld in our own nation, and enjoyed by the people herein…


You and I obviously prefer the former. Haymarket, it seems, prefers the latter; or at least is willing to give serious consideration to the latter.

Higgins86 said:

its just not something I can ever get my head around, its a system that protects groups like the KKK and allows people to preach hate against a minority etc. I'm all for free speech but in moderation, I personally dont [sic] believe the human race can be trusted with complete free speech.

Click to expand...

In other words…

Higgins86 said:

but thats not going to happen they will never accept an insult to Muhammad,
So again we can continue to allow these cartoons videos etc but know that we are putting our workers, diplomats etc at huge risk
We could just pull out of the arab world and let them rot.
We could prevent videos like these to appease the arabs and help keep our diplomatic ties with the region.

Click to expand...

There is no value in trying to appease mindless savages; and there is certainly no rational basis on which to sacrifice our own rights, freedoms, and principles in a futile effort to do so.

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

Bob Blaylock said:

You can think that, if you want; just as you can think that the Moon is made of paper maché, or that an automobile is powered by tiny unicorns running in a hamster wheel, or whatever other ridiculous thing you'd like to believe. Doesn't make it true.

Click to expand...

I am not alleging a statement of fact. At this point, nobody really can. I am asking people to stop and think about IF they are being used by an extremist with Machiavellian intent.

Higgins86 said:

and in an ideal world that embassy will always be at that level of security and will always be safe but I think we both know thats not how it works.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately both the US and Libya did not prepare better for the anniversary of 9/11 and this occurred, but, it did not happen because of freedom of speech. It happened because people rioted and murdered and the host government failed to provide adequate security by their own admission.

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

MMC said:

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

Click to expand...

"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.".....snip~


The reason I bring this around again is due to the Statement made by the Known Arab Reporter and Blogger. Which if one looks at Al-Jazerra when they are reporting just about anything in the ME they tend to all fall in the same dynamic thought pattern.

IMO this statements says it greatly. "Yes WE understand the First Amendment and all that "STUFF". But their Prophet Mohammed is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution!

Does he have a mouse in his pocket when he is speaking? Or does that sentiment reflect the TRUE Concept of the majority of Muslims? Take away the labels Radical and Extremist as to I don't know what do they say of the others. What.....Moderate? Does the Concept for them......Change?

Does anyone think that What Ginsburg said outloud in Egypt about the Constitution have any affect on the Way those that are Educated in the Muslim world, look at American Citizen's Rights? When Ginsburg Directly pointed to the Creation of the South African form of Democracy as a way to go forward in Conducting Govenrment and the Creation of Constitution based on the Aspect of Modernty. Do you think those Words Echoed Deeply with they way the Muslims now look at Democracy. Knowing they have even a US Supremem Court Judge saying she would not use the US Constituion as it was made up. Myself.....I tend to think this shows them they can Use Democracy for whatever gains they choose. Even if it is affecting the Rights of an Individual thru their Religion. Which will then always encroach on the Freedom of Speech.

Those remarks will ring in the ears for all of those Muslims Diplomats for years to come. As this was no Politican that comes and goes. But instead one of the Black Robes. There for Life! Guardian and Keeper of the Flame!

Since that time.....several US politicians that lean left have used the Term South African Constitution. In describing Rights as well as that socialistic agenda.

Can any deny that since that time.....Muslim's Anti-American Sentiment has increased? That negotiations have become more difficult even with Allied Muslim Nations.

Again.....the US Constituton and that Stuff. Where it says Alls Rights come from Where? One thing we know for sure. Those Rights don't come from Government, Nor ANY man-made religion.

All of our Politicians I don't care what side of the Aisle they are on.....need to Stand our Ground on the issue. Not look to make any concessions over that Definition of What Democracy is.

Bob Blaylock said:

In other words…

View attachment 67134760

Click to expand...

or

" im all for free speech just as long as its not abused by stupid people trying to incite hate"

In point of fact, even speech that is deliberately intended to incite violence is still protected under US federal law. This comes from an article posted on another thread.

The court in Claiborne also noted that even "advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the first amendment." The court there was citing its earlier decision in Brandenberg v Ohio, which had overturned the criminal conviction of a Ku Klux Klan leader who had threatened violence against political officials in a speech. The Brandenberg court explained that "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force."

Click to expand...

The convenience of denouncing free speech

Of course, if you read the whole article, you'll see that a KKK leader could get away with something that an Islamist sympathiser could not. The law seems clear but the application of it somewhat arbitrary.

Higgins86 said:

or

" im all for free speech just as long as its not abused by stupid people trying to incite hate"

Click to expand...

I hate when people use the word "love" should that be banned because it incites me to hate also? :roll: (note that "love" was just an example and isn't really true that I hate the word in case ya miss the sarcasm there) Point being that people can be incited to hate for very stupid reasons and if we start banning such things and making them crimes to say then were does it stop? Maybe we should just ban speech period?

Maybe we should make it a crime to criticize or disparage Jews, women, and gays? Then muslims will really be screwed.

No, 1st amendment is very clear both on establishment clause and free speech, so you'd have to repeal that first, and I actually think those are necessary to avoid despotism. It's not worth going down that path just for the sake of not stepping on fragile muslim psyche. In addition, muhammed was a huge pedo and lied about everything, so it's all good.

Higgins86 said:

but thats not going to happen they will never accept an insult to Muhammad,
So again we can continue to allow these cartoons videos etc but know that we are putting our workers, diplomats etc at huge risk
We could just pull out of the arab world and let them rot.
We could prevent videos like these to appease the arabs and help keep our diplomatic ties with the region.

Click to expand...

Its simple really, they either get along with the rest of the world or they can know pain. I am NOT giving up my free speech rights to appease some jackass in a towel. Their choice, they can do what they like, but they come looking for trouble their gona find it. If they dont like the cartoons ect., they can cut themselfs off from the rest of the world and not associate or deal with them. But them attacking us and others, not their best idea.

PirateMk1 said:

Its simple really, they either get along with the rest of the world or they can know pain. I am NOT giving up my free speech rights to appease some jackass in a towel. Their choice, they can do what they like, but they come looking for trouble their gona find it. If they dont like the cartoons ect., they can cut themselfs off from the rest of the world and not associate or deal with them. But them attacking us and others, not their best idea.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, but I'm not so sure our leaders do. You and I can easily see where the line is drawn in the sand, but we do't have a constituency to worry about, or an image to maintain. There seems to be many people who cannot understand the concept of taking a stand on principle, and they are, unfortunately, in positions of power, or they are anonymous members of society who cannot bring themselves to outright oppose something with which they disagree, if it comes across as insensitive.

wolv67 said:

Maybe we should make it a crime to criticize or disparage Jews, women, and gays? Then muslims will really be screwed.

Click to expand...

I thought California had made these things illegal.

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

Big Brotherhood Is Watching You!

Andalublue said:

I thought California had made these things illegal.

Click to expand...

From what I understand, it's an issue specific to college campuses.

lizzie said:

From what I understand, it's an issue specific to college campuses.

Click to expand...

So it's illegal in just a small part of California. How does the SCOTUS view this in relation to the First Amendment?

Andalublue said:

So it's illegal in just a small part of California. How does the SCOTUS view this in relation to the First Amendment?

Click to expand...

I suppose we won't know, unless it is challenged, and makes it all the way to the SC.

No, but unfortunately, shouting fire in a crowded theatre comes to mind.

Andalublue said:

I thought California had made these things illegal.

Click to expand...

If it had then Prop 8 never would have passed.

Kal'Stang said:

If it had then Prop 8 never would have passed.

Click to expand...

Very true.

(10 characters)