• 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?

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.

Dont forget Shiva the destroyer. One of my favs.:)
 
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.

The problem is anything could be construed as an "incitement" to violence. Didn't some people get killed because someone drew a cartoon of Muhammed?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

You could be right, eco. There could be a regulation that prohibit boobs on CBS.
That cannot possibly be true. There are all kinds of boobs on CBS. Rubes too.
 
Everyone already knows what i think about this topic of inciting violence with speech, but I will reword it again. I think treating people like mindless zombies and nothing more than response engines to outside stimuli is insulting. I want to make this clear, if you hear a man say its our mission to kill a certain group and you do it that is on you and your own lack moral character. You are not a mindless zombie, but you are an immoral piece of garbage that should be punished for your actions if you do what he says. While its true to say that the speaker has no business telling people to kill others they didn't kill anyone with their speech, but instead, suggested it and I have a real problem with calling suggestion a crime. This case is even dumber than the one I have above because instead of the speaker telling people to kill others he is just making fun of them and the people respond by rioting and/or killing others.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

That "Obamaphone" meme is about the only catchy phrase the Romney campaign has come up with.
I thought it was an Obama voter who came up with it.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I am a libertarian first and foremost, my concern is getting the government to respect all fundamental human right, not respect the wishes of a bunch of slaveholders.
Uh, that chip on your shoulder is way too big to ignore. Why not get a half a dozen of your friends to help remove it and put it on the floor?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Uh, that chip on your shoulder is way too big to ignore. Why not get a half a dozen of your friends to help remove it and put it on the floor?

Why are you so worried about the chip on my shoulder, when you should remove the plank from your own shoulder?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Why are you so worried about the chip on my shoulder, when you should remove the plank from your own shoulder?
I try to help. Are you unable to even get the sayings right? I thought not.
 
The problem is anything could be construed as an "incitement" to violence. Didn't some people get killed because someone drew a cartoon of Muhammed?

There are actually fairly clear guidelines (legally speaking) related to incitement. There's a whole legal test structure and a bunch of precedent.
 
The problem is anything could be construed as an "incitement" to violence. Didn't some people get killed because someone drew a cartoon of Muhammed?

under the so called indirect incitement to violence I agree, but indirect incitement to violence is a pointelss term that means nothing and should not even be used.
 
This might be the most one sided Poll (where only members can vote and they are ID'd) I have seen in 7 years
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

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.

Whatever you may think of this nation's founders, they certainly deserve far more respect than the subhuman savages to whom you would like to give power over us. I cannot imagine any rational argument in favor of the idea that the wishes of subhuman savages who have no standing in our society should carry any weight at all in this society.

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.

No, I did not. I said nothing about the Islamic religion. I accurately described a group of subhuman savages, who are no better than dumb, wild, violent animals. That these savages claim to be adherents of the Muslim faith, and use this as an excuse for their behavior, has no relevance at all. As it happens, I have a great many friends and colleagues who are Muslims. It is you who have insulted my Muslim friends, by implying that Islam has any relevance to the behavior of the wild animals who are under discussion.

I do not blame my friends' Muslim faith for the behavior of the savages that are under discussion, any more than I, as a Christian, would expect to be blamed for the behavior of Fred Phelps and his gang, or for groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

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!

I don't have a dog. If I did have a dog, I would certainly clean up after it, as necessary.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I don't have a dog. If I did have a dog, I would certainly clean up after it, as necessary.

Sorry I meant the Bob living on the other side
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Whatever you may think of this nation's founders, they certainly deserve far more respect than the subhuman savages to whom you would like to give power over us. I cannot imagine any rational argument in favor of the idea that the wishes of subhuman savages who have no standing in our society should carry any weight at all in this society.



No, I did not. I said nothing about the Islamic religion. I accurately described a group of subhuman savages, who are no better than dumb, wild, violent animals. That these savages claim to be adherents of the Muslim faith, and use this as an excuse for their behavior, has no relevance at all. As it happens, I have a great many friends and colleagues who are Muslims. It is you who have insulted my Muslim friends, by implying that Islam has any relevance to the behavior of the wild animals who are under discussion.

I do not blame my friends' Muslim faith for the behavior of the savages that are under discussion, any more than I, as a Christian, would expect to be blamed for the behavior of Fred Phelps and his gang, or for groups like the Ku Klux Klan.

AMEN. I am done with the if-you-won't-surrender-your-freedom-of-speech-you-must-hate-Muslins nonsense.
 
Personally, I've always considered slave owners to be subhuman savages. All thinking people agree with me on this.
 
Out for a nice troll this morning, are we? :D

Only if you consider challenging groupthink to be trolling. These are things people need to consider. I'm not going to stand idly by while a bunch of participants in a Muslim-bashing session pat themselves on the back for being champions of free speech. It's absurd. And if you think the framers were Godlike figures, you need to account for their inherent savagery as slave owners and racists.

I never once trolled or poed this thread, that's why I keep asking people to read what I write carefully.

By the way; I notice you failed to dredge up a contradiction from my posts! I cheerfully accept your failure to back up your libelous statement as your de facto concession on this point.
 
Last edited:
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.

Personally, I think the movie was a dodge. It was a US presidential election year and the anniversary of 9/11, so time to kill an American. Any excuse would have done -- and no doubt, there are tons of offensive videos on YouTube.

What would you find it "convenient" or "common sensical" for me to give up next? If I do surrender my freedom speech, will Al Queada start to like me?

This is just such sloppy thing, helix. It's an emotion-ridden knee-jerk response to fear, not an analysis.
 
Only if you consider challenging groupthink to be trolling. These are things people need to consider. I'm not going to stand idly by while a bunch of participants in a Muslim-bashing session pat themselves on the back for being champions of free speech. It's absurd. And if you think the framers were Godlike figures, you need to account for their inherent savagery as slave owners and racists.

I do not think anyone in this thread other than you has engaged herein in any Muslim-bashing. What we have “bashed” are violent, subhuman savages, and those who would give these savages the power to dictate what rights we get to enjoy as members of a free society. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who has implied that the Muslim religion has relevance to the behavior of these savages.
 
I do not think anyone in this thread other than you has engaged herein in any Muslim-bashing. What we have “bashed” are violent, subhuman savages, and those who would give these savages the power to dictate what rights we get to enjoy as members of a free society. As far as I can tell, you are the only one who has implied that the Muslim religion has relevance to the behavior of these savages.
That is entirely false.
 
Back
Top Bottom