• 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?

Bob Blaylock said:
So you would rather respect the wishes of subhuman savages who are not members of this society, and who have no standing herein, over the wishes of the “slaveholders” who established this society, and over the wishes of those of us who are now members in standing of this society? That's a rather bizarre representation of Libertarianism, I must say.
Click to expand...

I come from the academic tradition of Nozickian/Rothbardian libertarians. Frankly, I have never understood you folks who hold the framers up like gods, and why you think that following the constitution as they wrote it has anything to do with libertarianism.

As for your question, you have made me into a Strawman, and slurred a religion of peace, so it is not possible for me to answer other than to say you need to get your facts straight, both about me and the Islamic faith.
 
Guy Incognito said:
O
The topic of incitement to violence absolutely bears on this topic because that is what the film is. No one can doubt that and maintain any credibility. The question is, is it a protected form of incitement (indirect) or not(direct). It barely makes it. Hell, perhaps we need to reconsider our law on what constitutes direct incitement in he Internet age.

Should any disparaging remark about a religious figure be a crime? I agree it is a resounding no. Should a deliberate attempt to incite violence be against the law? Maybe, it depends on the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Looks like you're saying you would actually broaden the scope of speech that could be criminally punished.

Anybody who passionately defends this scumbag on free speech grounds, but is unwilling to stand up to everyday forms of censorship, has got their priorities totally out of whack.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about people who express a much stronger disapproval for the guy who made the video over the people who actually did the killing.
 
X Factor said:
Looks like you're saying you would actually broaden the scope of speech that could be criminally punished.



I feel the same way about people who express a much stronger disapproval for the guy who made the video over the people who actually did the killing.
Click to expand...

I'll answer the second part first. You may have missed it earlier, the guy who orders a hit is just as guilty as the hit man. It doesn't excuse the hit man to acknowledge the the guy who ordered the hit committed a crime too. In this scenario, the rioters are the hit man, and the filmmaker is the guy who ordered the hit. Both are in the wrong.

Should we broaden the incitement exception to free speech? Maybe, it is certainly worth considering. It may not even require broadening, merely a consideration of how new technology of instantaneous global communication changes what it means to "directly" incite violence.
 
Pinkie said:
Well, the FCC does regulate broadcasters, but if they did not, the system would break down. A channel has to be assigned, frequencies partioned out, etc.

At one time, the FCC DID censor the content of tv. But to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, that has not been true in at least a decade.
Click to expand...

If I'm remembering my first amendment law class, they still do exercise some controls over content (or did as of about four years ago, when I took the class), although mostly in commercial speech contexts.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
O
The topic of incitement to violence absolutely bears on this topic because that is what the film is. No one can doubt that and maintain any credibility. The question is, is it a protected form of incitement (indirect) or not(direct). It barely makes it. Hell, perhaps we need to reconsider our law on what constitutes direct incitement in he Internet age.

Should any disparaging remark about a religious figure be a crime? I agree it is a resounding no. Should a deliberate attempt to incite violence be against the law? Maybe, it depends on the circumstances.

Anybody who passionately defends this scumbag on free speech grounds, but is unwilling to stand up to everyday forms of censorship, has got their priorities totally out of whack.
Click to expand...

Indirect incitement to violence! come on you are basically saying if someone says something on group does not like and they react violently to it is indirect incitement to violence. Or to put it more succintly you believe that anyone can stifle freedom of speech by acting violently to somethign they dont like. following this line of reasoning means that there is no such thing as free speech as anyone can take offence at pretty much anything.
Any attempt to incite violence should be stopped, The movie was not an attempt to incite violence, the people whiping up mobs into a frenzy to attack others over the movie were inciting violence.

As to censorship on the airwaves, while I think the FCC rules are silly you do realize it requires a licence from the FCC to broadcast over the air, on cable etc but nothing from them to go onto the internet. Because you have to get a licence you have to comply with the rules of the FCC, like them or not, There is a difference. Perhaps the FCC should be disbanded, though then you get into the trouble of peopel using the same freqs for broadcasting etc, perhaps the FCC should only regulate those freqs and not include the content go to your federalpolitician and petition them for this. As it stands right now the FCC does both for TV/Radio but does not/cannot for internet.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Quag said:
Indirect incitement to violence! come on you are basically saying if someone says something on group does not like and they react violently to it is indirect incitement to violence. Or to put it more succintly you believe that anyone can stifle freedom of speech by acting violently to somethign they dont like. following this line of reasoning means that there is no such thing as free speech as anyone can take offence at pretty much anything.
Any attempt to incite violence should be stopped, The movie was not an attempt to incite violence, the people whiping up mobs into a frenzy to attack others over the movie were inciting violence.

As to censorship on the airwaves, while I think the FCC rules are silly you do realize it requires a licence from the FCC to broadcast over the air, on cable etc but nothing from them to go onto the internet. Because you have to get a licence you have to comply with the rules of the FCC, like them or not, There is a difference. Perhaps the FCC should be disbanded, though then you get into the trouble of peopel using the same freqs for broadcasting etc, perhaps the FCC should only regulate those freqs and not include the content go to your federalpolitician and petition them for this. As it stands right now the FCC does both for TV/Radio but does not/cannot for internet.
Click to expand...

So you're defending restrictions to free speech (which we agree is a fundamental right) when those restrictions are in the form of FCC regulations and license requirements. bah! Since when do you need a license to excercise a fundamental right? Where do you get off defending censorship and prior restraint when it comes to honest broadcaster, while claiming to be a champion of the free speech of those who want to incite violence and sow discord among Muslims?

You need to prioritize!
 
Aderleth said:
If I'm remembering my first amendment law class, they still do exercise some controls over content (or did as of about four years ago, when I took the class), although mostly in commercial speech contexts.
Click to expand...

I haven't actually studied con law in school in decades. I have no doubt, much has changed.

However..........

The fundamentals of first amendment protections, as with all our BOR freedoms, are still the same, and will never change. Which is why my family emigrated here and fought wars to protect this country.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I'll answer the second part first. You may have missed it earlier, the guy who orders a hit is just as guilty as the hit man. It doesn't excuse the hit man to acknowledge the the guy who ordered the hit committed a crime too. In this scenario, the rioters are the hit man, and the filmmaker is the guy who ordered the hit. Both are in the wrong.
Click to expand...

I notice you don't refer to the killers as scumbag but, fine, I'll rephrase. I think anyone who says that someone who makes a video is just as bad as someone who kills someone has their priorities out of wack. Btw, quit with the hit man analogy it doesn't work because in that case there's an agreement before hand as to the end result.

Should we broaden the incitement exception to free speech? Maybe, it is certainly worth considering. It may not even require broadening, merely a consideration of how new technology of instantaneous global communication changes what it means to "directly" incite violence.
Click to expand...

We should not change anything we have a legal right to do based on fear of someone's reaction. You should have just voted yes, Guy.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Quag said:
Indirect incitement to violence! come on you are basically saying if someone says something on group does not like and they react violently to it is indirect incitement to violence. Or to put it more succintly you believe that anyone can stifle freedom of speech by acting violently to somethign they dont like. following this line of reasoning means that there is no such thing as free speech as anyone can take offence at pretty much anything.
Any attempt to incite violence should be stopped, The movie was not an attempt to incite violence, the people whiping up mobs into a frenzy to attack others over the movie were inciting violence.

As to censorship on the airwaves, while I think the FCC rules are silly you do realize it requires a licence from the FCC to broadcast over the air, on cable etc but nothing from them to go onto the internet. Because you have to get a licence you have to comply with the rules of the FCC, like them or not, There is a difference. Perhaps the FCC should be disbanded, though then you get into the trouble of peopel using the same freqs for broadcasting etc, perhaps the FCC should only regulate those freqs and not include the content go to your federalpolitician and petition them for this. As it stands right now the FCC does both for TV/Radio but does not/cannot for internet.
Click to expand...

"Incitment" as an exception to freedom of speech requires direct, face to face speech and also requires the incitees be on US soil.
 
X Factor said:
I notice you don't refer to the killers as scumbag but, fine, I'll rephrase. I think anyone who says that someone who makes a video is just as bad as someone who kills someone has their priorities out of wack. Btw, quit with the hit man analogy it doesn't work because in that case there's an agreement before hand as to the end result.



We should not change anything we have a legal right to do based on fear of someone's reaction. You should have just voted yes, Guy.
Click to expand...

I deliberately did not vote because the question is too simplistic. You are quite wrong in mischaracterizing my argument as based on fear. Have you ever heard the expression that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
You need to prioritize!
Click to expand...

Well, you have obviously prioritized the Islamist agenda to destroy free speech in our country, I'll give you that.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
So you're defending restrictions to free speech (which we agree is a fundamental right) when those restrictions are in the form of FCC regulations and license requirements. bah! Since when do you need a license to excercise a fundamental right? Where do you get off defending censorship and prior restraint when it comes to honest broadcaster, while claiming to be a champion of the free speech of those who want to incite violence and sow discord among Muslims?

You need to prioritize!
Click to expand...
No I wasnt defending the FCC I was explaining the difference between communications that fall under FCC control and those that dont. If you fail to recognize this difference it is not my fault.
If you believe your "ìndirect" incitement to violence statements then you need to rethink what freedom off speech actually is.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Quag said:
No I wasnt defending the FCC I was explaining the difference between communications that fall under FCC control and those that dont. If you fail to recognize this difference it is not my fault.
If you believe your "ìndirect" incitement to violence statements then you need to rethink what freedom off speech actually is.
Click to expand...

I apologize for mischaracterizing your argument.
I also think you are still misunderstanding mine. Indirect incitement to violence is protected speech, direct incitement to violence is not. Can we agree to that much?
 
Guy Incognito said:
I deliberately did not vote because the question is too simplistic. You are quite wrong in mischaracterizing my argument as based on fear. Have you ever heard the expression that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose?
Click to expand...

I'm not wrong, I think you even said it outright. I don't know if you're arguing just to argue or if you really believe what you're saying but I think you've posted so many contradictory things, you've forgotten some of the arguments you've made.
 
X Factor said:
I'm not wrong, I think you even said it outright. I don't know if you're arguing just to argue or if you really believe what you're saying but I think you've posted so many contradictory things, you've forgotten some of the arguments you've made.
Click to expand...

If you think I said something contradictory, it is because you did not understand what I wrote. But you are welcome try to prove it with direct quotes. You will inevitably fail at this.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
I apologize for mischaracterizing your argument.
I also think you are still misunderstanding mine. Indirect incitement to violence is protected speech, direct incitement to violence is not. Can we agree to that much?
Click to expand...

Agreed, though I think you should just ignore the term indirect incitement to violence as it is meaningless. Now what in the question:
Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime?
Makes you have any hesitation to say NO!
it does not talk of incitement to violence but of speech that is disparaging or critical of Muhammed. I could care less if you replace Muhammed with Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Obama, Romney, or even Bob who lives next door and doesnt pick up after his dog. The answer in every single case is NO!
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Quag said:
Agreed, though I think you should just ignore the term indirect incitement to violence as it is meaningless. Now what in the question:
Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime?
Makes you have any hesitation to say NO!
it does not talk of incitement to violence but of speech that is disparaging or critical of Muhammed. I could care less if you replace Muhammed with Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Obama, Romney, or even Bob who lives next door and doesnt pick up after his dog. The answer in every single case is NO!
Click to expand...
The answer should be, "it depends.". If it incites violence then it is unacceptable, and the question is not clear about that. "Indirect incitement" is right on the borderline, which is why I draw the distinction. It gets a bit hazy when it comes to speech that is calculated to incite violence by technically indirect means. It's like exploiting a loophole.

Why is direct incitement prohibited? I don't see much difference, in spirit, between what this film maker did and a direct rabble rouser inciting violence in person. This guy knew full well what he was doing, he just did it at arms length. How is that so much different than direct incitement?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
Why is direct incitement prohibited? I don't see much difference, in spirit, between what this film maker did and a direct rabble rouser inciting violence in person. This guy knew full well what he was doing, he just did it at arms length. How is that so much different than direct incitement?
Click to expand...

If I stand on the street corner, and shout obscenities about Christians, and claim their god is a fraud, would that constitute incitement to riot?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Guy Incognito said:
The answer should be, "it depends.". If it incites violence then it is unacceptable, and the question is not clear about that. "Indirect incitement" is right on the borderline, which is why I draw the distinction. It gets a bit hazy when it comes to speech that is calculated to incite violence by technically indirect means. It's like exploiting a loophole.

Why is direct incitement prohibited? I don't see much difference, in spirit, between what this film maker did and a direct rabble rouser inciting violence in person. This guy knew full well what he was doing, he just did it at arms length. How is that so much different than direct incitement?
Click to expand...

No never! incitement to violence is nto the same thing as making critical or disparaging remarks. If the title of the thread was shoudlincitement to violence be against the law well guess what it already is. so no poitn in pretundign it has anythign to do with tthe thread. There is no hazy except in your mind. Either you incite violence or you dont. Just because someoen reacts violently to what you say does not make it incitement. No loophole you incite or you dont, this thread is about critical or disparaging remarks. not incitement to violence. direct or you wishy washy irrelevant indirect.

If you dont see the difference between a bad film that mocks someones beliefs and someone calling for the heads of people to be cut from their necks then I cannot help you! go back several pages Harry had the best post so far aboout this. I will grant he stated it in a way that was much clearer than anythign I have said so far.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
Wrong.

I'm not going to lift a finger to help him if his rights are getting infringed, since there are more important concerns. It doesn't mean I support the infringement.

Try applying a little logic. I have been very clear about this. Maybe you're just having trouble following the subtle nuances? It does require a bit of thought to follow me on this, I grant you.
Click to expand...

Guy your getting your head handed to you, and yes I understand the sublties of your arguement. However in this case I think doing nothing is the same as support. Which, while your support of freedom of speach is DeJure, your lack of action is DeFacto support of restriction of speach.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Guy your getting your head handed to you, and yes I understand the sublties of your arguement. However in this case I think doing nothing is the same as support. Which, while your support of freedom of speach is DeJure, your lack of action is DeFacto support of restriction of speach.
Click to expand...

I can't say I agree with you there. Understand that I am mostly here to criticize people who oppose freedom of speech by supporting things like censorship on TV, but are all of a sudden champions of free speech when it comes to the right to bash Muslims. That underlying hypocrisy and bigotry angers me greatly. I am as staunch a supporter of freedom of speech as any libertarian, and you might take note that I applauded Henrin earlier for standing up for ALL FORMS of free speech. But if you support censorship on TV, because apparently you think boobs hurt people(?) you have no business asserting freedom of speech here, where people really got hurt. That's my argument.

I am also considering a separate topic, which might not be wise considering that there are some people here looking to twist my words to get back at me for making them look foolish in other threads. That separate topic is whether this rises to the level of prohibited incitement. It does not, but just barely, and considering that the doctrines related to incitement were written prior to the internet age, any fair minded person will have to address the question of whether they are still valid. So far nobody opposing me has done that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can't say I agree with you there. Understand that I am mostly here to criticize people who oppose freedom of speech by supporting things like censorship on TV, but are all of a sudden champions of free speech when it comes to the right to bash Muslims. That underlying hypocrisy and bigotry angers me greatly. I am as staunch a supporter of freedom of speech as any libertarian, and you might take note that I applauded Henrin earlier for standing up for ALL FORMS of free speech. But if you support censorship on TV, because apparently you think boobs hurt people(?) you have no business asserting freedom of speech here, where people really got hurt. That's my argument.

I am also considering a separate topic, which might not be wise considering that there are some people here looking to twist my words to get back at me for making them look foolish in other threads. That separate topic is whether this rises to the level of prohibited incitement. It does not, but just barely, and considering that the doctrines related to incitement were written prior to the internet age, any fair minded person will have to address the question of whether they are still valid. So far nobody opposing me has done that.
Click to expand...

I am right in line with Henrin, we pretty much in agreement there, I might even be slightly more extreme in that particalar view, though to be honest probably not by much. I understand were you are coming from, perhaps playing devils advocate would probably describe what you are doing. I think we can agree this is not incitement, which by the way I do not agree with or conspiricy for that matter.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I am right in line with Henrin, we pretty much in agreement there, I might even be slightly more extreme in that particalar view, though to be honest probably not by much. I understand were you are coming from, perhaps playing devils advocate would probably describe what you are doing. I think we can agree this is not incitement, which by the way I do not agree with or conspiricy for that matter.
Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate describes pretty much everything I do.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I can always use one more religion to make fun off. So no. Muhammed the killer, Jesus the flower power fairy and Vishnu the creep should all be fair game.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I can't say I agree with you there. Understand that I am mostly here to criticize people who oppose freedom of speech by supporting things like censorship on TV, but are all of a sudden champions of free speech when it comes to the right to bash Muslims. That underlying hypocrisy and bigotry angers me greatly. I am as staunch a supporter of freedom of speech as any libertarian, and you might take note that I applauded Henrin earlier for standing up for ALL FORMS of free speech. But if you support censorship on TV, because apparently you think boobs hurt people(?) you have no business asserting freedom of speech here, where people really got hurt. That's my argument.

I am also considering a separate topic, which might not be wise considering that there are some people here looking to twist my words to get back at me for making them look foolish in other threads. That separate topic is whether this rises to the level of prohibited incitement. It does not, but just barely, and considering that the doctrines related to incitement were written prior to the internet age, any fair minded person will have to address the question of whether they are still valid. So far nobody opposing me has done that.
Click to expand...

Start new thread, leave this one alone as you seem to agree that disparaging or critical marks must be protected and only incitment to violence should be stopped. There is no ambiguity in the question asked, it is not about incitement to violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom