• 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?

It's on the public Internet. I don't see a meaningful distinction there.

Someone must pay to access the internet. No payment is required for access to public airwaves. There's your difference.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Someone must pay to access the internet. No payment is required for access to public airwaves. There's your difference.

No pay is required to access public airwaves? What are they piped into your brain? Or are you forgetting you need to purchase a TV?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No pay is required to access public airwaves? What are they piped into your brain? Or are you forgetting you need to purchase a TV?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? When you acquire a TV, you have access to public airwaves free of charge. When you acquire a computer, do you have the internet free of charge (for ever and ever)?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Since the movie in question mocked a dead warlord, is there anything inherent to this particular warlord that demands respect vs any other warlord?

This isn't a question about whether Muhammad was a warlord. You could call the Christian God and many other God systems the same thing. It's a matter of respecting other people's beliefs. If someone were to tell me unicorns are real and it helps them sleep at night, I might think they're off their rocker, but I certainly wouldn't be disrespectful about it. If the maker of the movie had any respect, he wouldn't have made the movie, let alone lie to the actors in the film and voice over their original parts.

Again, it boils down to common sense. You don't make a movie like that and release it publicly knowing that it will cause violent outrage. It's a thin line to walk, I admit that. But you have to ask yourself, at what point does it stop being art? We don't consider child porn as art. We don't consider racial violence videos as art. We shouldn't consider this art either.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Someone must pay to access the internet. No payment is required for access to public airwaves. There's your difference.

In either case, the payment is the annoying advertisements.
Nothing is "free".
I do not think "money" is a factor.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

This isn't a question about whether Muhammad was a warlord. You could call the Christian God and many other God systems the same thing. It's a matter of respecting other people's beliefs. If someone were to tell me unicorns are real and it helps them sleep at night, I might think they're off their rocker, but I certainly wouldn't be disrespectful about it. If the maker of the movie had any respect, he wouldn't have made the movie, let alone lie to the actors in the film and voice over their original parts.

Again, it boils down to common sense. You don't make a movie like that and release it publicly knowing that it will cause violent outrage. It's a thin line to walk, I admit that. But you have to ask yourself, at what point does it stop being art? We don't consider child porn as art. We don't consider racial violence videos as art. We shouldn't consider this art either.

Well stated.
Common sense is not "common" with all men.....and neither is respect....a shame....
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? When you acquire a TV, you have access to public airwaves free of charge. When you acquire a computer, do you have the internet free of charge (for ever and ever)?

How does who you pay for access to a medium play any role in deciding whether the medium itself and it's content can be censored?

You argument is unsound all on its own. In pointing out that TV is also paid for I am pointing out that your argument is also logically invalid.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

You argument is unsound all on its own. In pointing out that TV is also paid for I am pointing out that your argument is also logically invalid.

No, your argument is BS. Needing electrical equipment is a given. Needing to pay for access is the difference.

You asked for a difference, there it is - plain and obvious. Are you still going to claim that there is NO difference?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No, your argument is BS. Needing electrical equipment is a given. Needing to pay for access is the difference.

You asked for a difference, there it is - plain and obvious. Are you still going to claim that there is NO difference?

Needing to pay for access makes no meaningful difference. Even if it did, it is possible to access the net for free at libraries and public computers. YouTube is free. The fact that Internet requires a subscription is no different from cabl, which is also censored.

Your distinction is neither a real distinction nor, should we grant a distinction arguendo, is the distinction a meaningful one.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

He DID translate it into Arabic. What did he think was going to happen? They'd all become Christians?

This thread shows the inability of the right to get past simplistic jingoism. Did anybody think this wouldn't happen? The simmering rage of Islam that you all are telling us about...well, he poured gasoline on it...Hello?

So cancel the 1st Amendment?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Needing to pay for access makes no meaningful difference. Even if it did, it is possible to access the net for free at libraries and public computers. YouTube is free. The fact that Internet requires a subscription is no different from cabl, which is also censored.

Your distinction is neither a real distinction nor, should we grant a distinction arguendo, is the distinction a meaningful one.

It's meaningful enough to require public regulation, as a public good. Your backpedal and denial doesn't change reality.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

yet nobody is doing anything to protect the right of network TV to curse or show nudity.

I have done that a few times. :D
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I have done that a few times. :D

Bravo!

I can see why a person as devoted to freedom o speech as you might defend the right of the filmmaker. But if a person is willing to defend the right of somebody to disparage religious figures with the intent to incite violence, but DOES NOT defend the right to put boobs on TV, that is, in my correct opinion, hypocrisy.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Haymarket. Your use of Machiavellian implies intent, insight, and control of the filmmaker. However, your assumption is a strange one. How would he know that the exact nature of the response would be as such? Should he understand that anger would be displayed in the criticism of the film, does that make a common-house definition of a "troll" is a Machiavellian? Or is that person-the "troll"- a simpleton who by sheer stupidity and obnoxiousness inspires unrest ? Part of the point of Machiavellian behavior is that one is incredibly cunning and in control of the situation, where I sense the exact opposite. I think you give this man far too much credit in his designs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Only if those depictions utilize public airwaves. The public has the right (responsibility, even) to regulate public airwaves, in a public manner.

It's on the public Internet. I don't see a meaningful distinction there.

The “public airwaves” are a limited resource. There is only so much bandwidth available. There needs to be some system to determine which content gets to use which parts of this bandwidth, as it is not possible for all of the content to be carried on it that everyone might want to transmit. There is, of course, plenty of room to argue about whether the manner in which the FCC regulates the use of this bandwidth is appropriate, or about how else it might be regulated, but clearly some sort of regulation is necessary and proper. Without regulation of some sort, this resource would be rendered useless.

The Internet is much less limited, and is carried on a very large patchwork of privately-built and privately-owned networks. There is certainly much, much less reason for the government to be involved in regulating how it is to be used.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?


Why do you want nudity and profanity on public airwaves? You don't get enough from other sources? As a public good (a commons) and a limited resource, I am fine with keeping those few stations fit for family enjoyment. I vote no nudity or profanity on public airwaves and I'm in the majority, so tough crap.

I think you are taking libertarian to a stupid extreme on this issue.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? When you acquire a TV, you have access to public airwaves free of charge. When you acquire a computer, do you have the internet free of charge (for ever and ever)?

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

Why do you want nudity and profanity on public airwaves? You don't get enough from other sources? As a public good (a commons) and a limited resource, I am fine with keeping those few stations fit for family enjoyment. I vote no nudity or profanity on public airwaves and I'm in the majority, so tough crap.

I think you are taking libertarian to a stupid extreme on this issue.

Stations that wanted to bring in the family unit would show things for that audience while everyone else would not. There is also nothing to be scared about with nudity or human interaction. I don't see how this is a stupid extreme when there is no reason what so ever for the government to act.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Ever heard of free WiFi?

If you are a patron somewhere. Not in your house.
 
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.
I'm sorry, but this was a horrifically stupid poll. Not the even the most extremes of any political lean on here have said yes.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Stations that wanted to bring in the family unit would show things for that audience while everyone else would not. There is also nothing to be scared about with nudity or human interaction. I don't see how this is a stupid extreme when there is no reason what so ever for the government to act.

I'm not a prude. I go to nude beaches with my girlfriends. I'm ok with polygamy (both ways) and I get plenty. I'm also ok with regulating a public good in a manner that is best for the public, that being a public and fair manner.

There is no need for nudity or profanity on the very few public airwave stations, and keeping those stations family-friendly is the will of the people.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I didnt understand the question right at first and voted yes :D
 
I'm sorry, but this was a horrifically stupid poll. Not the even the most extremes of any political lean on here have said yes.

Given some of the arguments in this thread, there really should be a few more yes votes. I am heartened, overall though, by the results.
 
Given some of the arguments in this thread, there really should be a few more yes votes. .

It's funny how so many argue yes, but are too cowardly to come right out and vote it.
 
Back
Top Bottom