• 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
Gardener said:
Now, Come on, Pinkster. As a "libertarian" he offers his full support to the Islamists who want to make pretty much everything illegal, and if you don't agree with that particular brand of jack booted totalitarianism, you MUST be a bigot.

It would all make perfect sense if you would only take enough drugs.
Click to expand...

Ah, so THAT'S what "libertarian" means.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'm not concerned about their feelings, I'm concerned about their lies and the lives of those they are going to hurt and kill in their rioting. It's basic human compassion.

Why get so worked up to defend this guy's right to do the despicable thing he did? What exactly is going on to infringe his rights, anyway, is there some serious danger that disparaging religious figures is going to become a crime?
Click to expand...

Hopefully not, but it's times like this that we need to be extra vigilant and push back hard against any suggestions that we should consider infringing in our freedoms in order to keep the "peace" (I put that in quotes because peace based on fear, is no peace at all). I asked this question in the first case because I had read enough on this very forum that made me concerned that the number of people who think Muhammed should be some legally untouchable figure seemed to be scarily substantial.

What kind of person is willing to scream and holler to defend somebody that purposefully incites riots on free speech grounds, but will not do the same for cursing on television?
Click to expand...

But Guy, when you place the blame of killings, rioting or whatever on a guy who made a video, you are effectively defending those who actually commit the violence by saying they had a legitimate reason to react the way they did.

Why, you planning to stop being civil?
Click to expand...
I wasn't sure what you'd think of my post you responded to above.
 
X Factor said:
Hopefully not, but it's times like this that we need to be extra vigilant and push back hard against any suggestions that we should consider infringing in our freedoms in order to keep the "peace" (I put that in quotes because peace based on fear, is no peace at all). I asked this question in the first case because I had read enough on this very forum that made me concerned that the number of people who think Muhammed should be some legally untouchable figure seemed to be scarily substantial.
Click to expand...

I cannot disagree with you more. It is not times like this that we need to be ever-watchful of the right to bash the Islamic religion. That right is not going away, don't worry. Quite the contrary, it is in the interest of certain of our politicians to gin up hatred towards them.

I mean, I agree with the underlying sentiment. Free speech that is unpopular is what needs to be protected. But seriously, just take a look around these boards. The attitudes of this filmmaker are not unpopular.

What is unpopular and needs to be protected are things like nudity and cursing, and the fact that we still have laws prohibiting cursing on tv in this day and age is positively absurd.

But Guy, when you place the blame of killings, rioting or whatever on a guy who made a video, you are effectively defending those who actually commit the violence by saying they had a legitimate reason to react the way they did.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Direct incitement to violence is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Ordering a hit is just as bad as being a hitman. It doesn't excuse the hitman.

I wasn't sure what you'd think of my post you responded to above.
Click to expand...

It's all about attitude, X. You can say whatever you like about my arguments. Sometimes I am not the most cogent of people, but this is not one of those times. As long as you're not personally attacking me outside of the basement, it is all copacetic.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. Direct incitement to violence is wrong, wouldn't you agree? Ordering a hit is just as bad as being a hitman.
Click to expand...

How making a video (in California) that ridicules Muhammed "direct incitement" of a riot that happens in Libya?
 
Pinkie said:
How making a video (in California) that ridicules Muhammed "direct incitement" of a riot that happens in Libya?
Click to expand...

I made a video that mocked Genghis Khan the other day, and all hell broke out in the little Mongolia section of Aukland, New Zealand.
 
Pinkie said:
How making a video (in California) that ridicules Muhammed "direct incitement" of a riot that happens in Libya?
Click to expand...

In US Hate Speech legis, it requires a specific (nearly individual) target and a realistic chance of said violence carried out.
 
ecofarm said:
In US Hate Speech legis, it requires a specific (nearly individual) target and a realistic chance of said violence carried out.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it also requires that the speaker and the rioters be face to face, and in the US.
 
ecofarm said:
In US Hate Speech legis, it requires a specific (nearly individual) target and a realistic chance of said violence carried out.
Click to expand...

That's my point, as I said in a post prior to that one, the film was an indirect incitement and therefore protected. But direct incitement is not. Furthermore, ordering a hit is certainly not. Ordering a hit does not excuse the hitman or the guy who ordered it. They are both to blame. In the case of indirect incitement, although there is and should be a right to such speech, it is morally no different than ordering a hit. And this likewise does not excuse those who were incited to violence, either in the case of direct or indirect incitement.
 
Pinkie said:
Yes, and it also requires that the speaker and the rioters be face to face, and in the US.
Click to expand...

Face to face? I don't think so. Radio is not possible? Publications?
 
I am frankly stunned that any adult, educated Americans could even THINK of restricting our freedom of speech to appease ME fundies, nevermind to SAY so out loud.

There's another thread running now about the 4th Amendment; what searches the police may conduct without a warrant. A few people there are arguing that "well, as long as the cops find a criminal, I guess that's okay".

I am sometimes afraid for this country's future after I read such things.
 
Pinkie, you know paper publishers/hate group leaders have been successfully prosecuted for more than the hate speech.
 
Pinkie said:
Ah, so THAT'S what "libertarian" means.
Click to expand...

Well, no. Not really. If you will see, I identify as libertarian, and my views on this issue are virtually opposite his. Libertarians typically support maximizing individual freedoms, including that of free speech, unhindered by government intrusion, and strong advocacy for the individual, as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others.
 
lizzie said:
Well, no. Not really. If you will see, I identify as libertarian, and my views on this issue are virtually opposite his. Libertarians typically support maximizing individual freedoms, including that of free speech, unhindered by government intrusion, and strong advocacy for the individual, as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

Tell me, lizzie, what is your considered libertarian stance on TV censorship?
 
lizzie said:
Well, no. Not really. If you will see, I identify as libertarian, and my views on this issue are virtually opposite his. Libertarians typically support maximizing individual freedoms, including that of free speech, unhindered by government intrusion, and strong advocacy for the individual, as long as he is not infringing on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

I was trying to point out how silly Guy's claim was that his was a libertarian POV, and didn't do it as well as I should have.

Sorry.

To be honest, I don't know what political label to give it, except "unpatriotic".
 
Pinkie said:

To be honest, I don't know what political label to give it, except "unpatriotic".
Click to expand...

Based on other stances I've observed him take, I'd say authoritarian fits pretty well, as a rule.

(and no need to be sorry. I understood where you were coming from.:))
 
Pinkie said:
"unpatriotic".
Click to expand...

Oh, please.

If you can't refute hate speech law being based on 3rd party murder conviction, then you've lost a foundation and, to be honest, I don't know what other leg you've to stand on (at the moment) regarding "face to face".
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Based on other stances I've observed him take, I'd say authoritarian fits pretty well, as a rule.
Click to expand...

You have obviously been unable to understand what I have written. Don't feel bad, it's very complicated stuff, I understand why it might go over a person's head.

Meanwhile, I take you silence on the matter of TV censorship as tacit admission for your unlibertarian support of it.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:


To be honest, I don't know what political label to give it, except "unpatriotic".
Click to expand...

Well, as long as you don't call him free market communist, all is good.

I called dibsies on that one a long time ago.
 
Gardener said:
What DO you have, and is it catching?
Click to expand...

I know you're mad because I called you out on your anti-Islamic remarks. But show a little class upstairs please, out of respect for the forum if not for me.
 
ecofarm said:
Oh, please. If you can't refute hate speech law being based on 3rd party murder conviction, then you've lost a foundation and, to be honest, I don't know what other leg you've to stand on (at the moment) regarding "face to face".
Click to expand...

There are no laws against "hate speech" in the US, and I doubt there ever could be, eco. That term has meaning in other nations which criminalize some opinions, and it has meaning in a social context in the US, but not a legal one.

As for the "face to face" requirement: see Brandenburg v. US.

Brandenburg v. Ohio

A Klu Klux Klan meeting in Ohio was filmed and a newspaper report was made of it. The Klansman who spoke was arrested and charged/convicted with criminal solicitation ("If they keep pushing us, we'll rise up and kill them", or words to that effect).

The Supreme Court overturned, because despite the fact that the film could be shown later and the newspaper report read later, there were no blacks or Jews or federal government employees, etc. present at the meeting for the crowd who actually heard the speech to attack, and thus, no direct incitement.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I know you're mad because I called you out on your anti-Islamic remarks. But show a little class upstairs please, out of respect for the forum if not for me.
Click to expand...

Where are these bigoted remarks Gardener has allegedly made about Muslims, pray tell?
 
ecofarm said:
An understanding that an authoritarian position has good intention, or it's not politics.
Click to expand...

I think I have been pretty clear that I support some authoritarian measures to the extent that they correct an imbalance or injustice. This does not pertain this thread, however, and is more about things like affirmative action to make up for Jim Crow.

Unless you're an anarchist, everybody is an authoritarian to some extent, even libertarians. The real question is, how intellectually honest is a person?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom