• 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?

Only if we make no smoke rings someone on the planet might find offensive to the point of growing violent.

Considering what we just did before the smokes, I think we should expect nothing less than armageddon.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Considering what we just did before the smokes, I think we should expect nothing less than armageddon.

Ya, here's a thought that should chill these anti-free speech types: if we concede and outlaw speech trashing the Prophet Muhammed, we'll also have to outlaw porn. In fact, as I understand it, all visual images of people, clothed or not.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

This is how I really feel on this case.

Jones is despicable and should be mocked endlessly.

There are consequences to free speech .... however, excepting certain limited circumstances that are defined as "not protected speech", there is nothing the government can or should do in this case.

Additionally, this situation is not even remotely analogous to "shouting fire". ( I had started another thread with some wild examples on that SCOTUS ruling) . If you applied that standard (SCOTUS) to this situation, every little thing that we believe, or write, or speak that goes against someone's religion could be considered an incitement to violence.

People are responsible for the actions that they take. If the actions involve killing people because they were offended well then they can go **** themselves.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I am amazed that there are 3 votes for yes. I mean ya gotta speak nice about Muhammed and the Tooth Fairy. Especially fairies. Let's not be suggesting that Muhammed was a pedophile because Aisha was only 9 years old. Heaven forbid! I don't really know, but I think the AssCrack worshippers need to be treated as well. Keerist, where's a good fumigator when you need one? I think the key word is "treated."
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I am amazed that there are 3 votes for yes. I mean ya gotta speak nice about Muhammed and the Tooth Fairy. Especially fairies. Let's not be suggesting that Muhammed was a pedophile because Aisha was only 9 years old. Heaven forbid! I don't really know, but I think the AssCrack worshippers need to be treated as well. Keerist, where's a good fumigator when you need one? I think the key word is "treated."

My freedom of speech allows me to tell you that your ignorance of Islam is showing, and that I dislike anyone using this topic as an excuse to parade their bigotry.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Then would this also include those Religions that have come and gone? Moreover if you cannot have disparaging remarks. Then there should be no Glorifying Remarks either.....just as you cannot grow an Apple without it's Core.....Right?
essentially keep your religion to yourself. Kind of like a don't ask don't tell type of thing. Bragging or building up certain religions only ends up causing trouble. We have the freedom of religion, so anybody is allowed to worship anything they please, and I support it. But Religion vs. Religion does not work and it only causes trouble. Don't talk about your religion, I won't talk about mine, I know what I believe and you have the right to believe whatever, but don't tell me I am wrong or that what you believe is better.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

essentially keep your religion to yourself. Kind of like a don't ask don't tell type of thing. Bragging or building up certain religions only ends up causing trouble. We have the freedom of religion, so anybody is allowed to worship anything they please, and I support it. But Religion vs. Religion does not work and it only causes trouble. Don't talk about your religion, I won't talk about mine, I know what I believe and you have the right to believe whatever, but don't tell me I am wrong or that what you believe is better.

Lovely manners, lousy constitutional law.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

essentially keep your religion to yourself. Kind of like a don't ask don't tell type of thing. Bragging or building up certain religions only ends up causing trouble. We have the freedom of religion, so anybody is allowed to worship anything they please, and I support it. But Religion vs. Religion does not work and it only causes trouble. Don't talk about your religion, I won't talk about mine, I know what I believe and you have the right to believe whatever, but don't tell me I am wrong or that what you believe is better.

What about religions that have come and gone? Would they be exempt? As Again, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

What about religions that have come and gone? Would they be exempt? As Again, whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
No religion comes and goes, just because it is not prominent does not mean that somebody out there does not still believe. I mean obviously it would be difficult to enforce and as Pinkie pointed out it would be fairly lousy as a law, but all current, former, and religions that might emerge in the future should be covered.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

What about religions that have come and gone? .

Which is the objective of the most aggressive religion out there -- to extinguish the others so that only one prevails.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No religion comes and goes, just because it is not prominent does not mean that somebody out there does not still believe. I mean obviously it would be difficult to enforce and as Pinkie pointed out it would be fairly lousy as a law, but all current, former, and religions that might emerge in the future should be covered.

I think thats what happened in the first place.....Ever wonder why the Sumerians who were the Second to to inhabit the ME as a Civilized Society and taught Enoch how to Write, ever wonder why what they stated about the Gods and the Creator. Was never taken as the Predominant Religion of it's Time?

Which then if you censore Religion.....then you would also have to do so with all Meta-physical Concepts.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

essentially keep your religion to yourself. Kind of like a don't ask don't tell type of thing. Bragging or building up certain religions only ends up causing trouble. We have the freedom of religion, so anybody is allowed to worship anything they please, and I support it. But Religion vs. Religion does not work and it only causes trouble. Don't talk about your religion, I won't talk about mine, I know what I believe and you have the right to believe whatever, but don't tell me I am wrong or that what you believe is better.

Should someone retaliate against you because you discuss your religion that is considered a hate crime; beside being just plain nuts.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I'm torn on this issue.

On the one hand, free speech should be protected at all costs.

However, when one's free speech is directly responsible for violence towards innocent people all over the world I do wonder if some responsibility for that rests with the "speaker"?

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

A joke about a bomb on an airplane?
Making a verbal threat towards the president?
Libel and slander?
Conspiracy?

Aren't those non-violent actions that result in criminal charges where one could easily argue freedom of speech?

The d!ckwad that wrote and produced that stupid trash movie knew exactly what the outcome might be.
We all know what might happen if we do the same thing.

Now multiple people, who had nothing to do with the movie or the sentiment behind it, are dead.

Why can't the people who made that movie be held accountable?

Does my right to free speech supersede your right to live?

The flip side of that is: If you know something is offensive - just ignore it and/or don't volunteer to witness it.

Salman Rushdie should be able to write any book he chooses to write. People have the right not to buy it and not to read it. They can ignore it.

I think intent and context go a long way in these kinds of issues.

Was the movie simply hate speech designed to incite violence? If so, I see no reason that somebody should not be held responsible for their consequences.

I can easily go back and forth on this.

To me it's a simple proposition. Does one support rule of the mob or not?

The reflexive response some have had is tantamount to mob rule. If that man is culpable to the attacks then the following would also be implicated:

A Christian reads a popular blog that contains offensive material about the divinity of Jesus Christ. The man rallies himself or his friends up and they go on the streets looting, and smashing vehicles on the street, using the blog as a public reason for the disorder. The blogger is then apprehended and charged for inciting riot.

It's quite simple. Yes, it is offensive, but you are in control of your own reaction. Just because you are offended does not mean you are granted the freedom to destroy property, attack a sovereign nation, or kill human beings. Furthermore, if one man's speech is somehow selectively picked for outrage, are any of us safe from the rule of a mob?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

To me it's a simple proposition. Does one support rule of the mob or not?

The reflexive response some have had is tantamount to mob rule. If that man is culpable to the attacks then the following would also be implicated:

A Christian reads a popular blog that contains offensive material about the divinity of Jesus Christ. The man rallies himself or his friends up and they go on the streets looting, and smashing vehicles on the street, using the blog as a public reason for the disorder. The blogger is then apprehended and charged for inciting riot.

It's quite simple. Yes, it is offensive, but you are in control of your own reaction. Just because you are offended does not mean you are granted the freedom to destroy property, attack a sovereign nation, or kill human beings. Furthermore, if one man's speech is somehow selectively picked for outrage, are any of us safe from the rule of a mob?


Well.....seems we know the Sunni Clerics do!
 
Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed a Crime?

They sure seem to.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

People who say that Bacille could only have wanted to incite violence have no idea what they're talking about. Firstly, we do not even now whether the attack on the embassy was motivated by the film or if the film was merely a pretext to cover-up a pre-meditated plan to take out the ambassador. In addition, the other protests in Egypt probably had to do with other factors and grievances than just this one film. Secondly, to say that airing an offensive film about one's religion constituting incitement is to strip the word "incitement" of any practical meaning and suddenly casts a lot of expression under the pale of censorship. Bacille may or may not have wanted violence, but to assume that: A. that violence was the inevitable response and B. that this may constitutes incitement are ludicrous. These protesters were reasonably capable of nonviolently responding to the movie. They could have simply done what the millions of people who have their religions insulted do on a daily basis: ignore it or respond to it in a manner that does not involve violence. The protesters alone chose not to do this, and they alone are responsible. I have no sympathy for those who respond to sophomoric insults with violence. If we are going to outlaw certain forms of speech because they might be offensive to some troglodytes, we would have to ban a lot of things, and it would not do a whole lot. This radical fringe is going to hate America, and giving up our most basic institutions will not stop them. Many of the people complaining about how the West's fight against radical Islamists changed its culture now want us to change our laws to ban hurtful speech, and they fail to see the irony. Some even want to go as far as charging Bacille for making the film, although this does not constitute any real crime. Charging Bacille would only be a fruitless, unconstitutional gesture.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

PirateMk1 said:
What part of free speach dont you understand? The free or the speach. The constitution is VERY clear on it.

Actually, I find the constitution almost singularly unclear on the topic. The relevant language states:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

"Freedom" and "Liberty" meant, and should still mean, different things. "Liberty" was, in the parlance of the Englightenment, much more broad than "Freedom." To understand why, I recommend John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding." You'll find the relevant chapter in the second book.

Consider also that it should be simple common sense that the clause cannot be interpretted to protect the notion that a person cannot be held legally liable for anything they say. For example: suppose you are on trial for murder, and the witnesses for the prosecution all testify to evidence against you that is completely false, but which persuades a jury to send you to death row. Clearly, the clause is not meant to cover that kind of speech. But if not, then we have to have a discussion about which kinds of speech are protected and which arent't, since clearly, we cannot say that it should be all kinds of speech.
 
Pinkie said:
No, it shouldn't -- unless you're addressing a bunch a nutters ready to bomb a Muslim mosque in the US at that very moment.

Why would that matter? While my example was a little simplistic, it seems the concern with speech that calls for violence is that it might well create, out of a neutral crowd, a group who are suddenly populated by just that sort of nutter. People are inclined to believe what they hear when it's put to them in a certain way; this is a simple fact of psychology (and one which the philosophy of the Age of Reason tended not to recognize). Someone who uses this fact to incite violence should be held accountable, even under our Constitution.

Frankly, I think freedom of speech, in an ideal world, ought not to cover blatantly false or misleading talk as well, in any context.
 
Why would that matter? While my example was a little simplistic, it seems the concern with speech that calls for violence is that it might well create, out of a neutral crowd, a group who are suddenly populated by just that sort of nutter. People are inclined to believe what they hear when it's put to them in a certain way; this is a simple fact of psychology (and one which the philosophy of the Age of Reason tended not to recognize). Someone who uses this fact to incite violence should be held accountable, even under our Constitution.

The right to freedom of speech cannot be restricted by our government, under our constitution, except in very limited ways. One such is the "fighting words" exception, which is face-to-face provocation that a reasonable person would know is very likely to result in violence. If you consider that not even the WBC's speech is vitriolic or immediate enough to be banned as fighting words, you'll see this country sets that bar very high.

The people injured by the events in the Middle East last week (relatives of those slain) do not have a lawsuit against the maker of the film that touched off the outrage. This is because the US does not have jurisdiction over the film maker, who I gather is an Israeli citizen residing in Israel, and because the harm was not proximately caused by the film under US law.


Frankly, I think freedom of speech, in an ideal world, ought not to cover blatantly false or misleading talk as well, in any context.

If there is a right to rely, deliberate or negligent untruths and harm as a result, then yes, you can sue for false or misleading language. Nobody has a constitutional right to falsely claim "made of 22 carat gold", etc.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Actually, I find the constitution almost singularly unclear on the topic. The relevant language states:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

"Freedom" and "Liberty" meant, and should still mean, different things. "Liberty" was, in the parlance of the Englightenment, much more broad than "Freedom." To understand why, I recommend John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding." You'll find the relevant chapter in the second book.

Consider also that it should be simple common sense that the clause cannot be interpretted to protect the notion that a person cannot be held legally liable for anything they say. For example: suppose you are on trial for murder, and the witnesses for the prosecution all testify to evidence against you that is completely false, but which persuades a jury to send you to death row. Clearly, the clause is not meant to cover that kind of speech. But if not, then we have to have a discussion about which kinds of speech are protected and which arent't, since clearly, we cannot say that it should be all kinds of speech.

Of course not. Some crimes are almost completely verbal, e.g., soliciting a bribe.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Pinkie said:
The right to freedom of speech cannot be restricted by our government, under our constitution, except in very limited ways. One such is the "fighting words" exception, which is face-to-face provocation that a reasonable person would know is very likely to result in violence. If you consider that not even the WBC's speech is vitriolic or immediate enough to be banned as fighting words, you'll see this country sets that bar very high.

The OP didn't ask what was, it asked what should be, a question which I took to mean "what should be under our constitution," or "how should we interpret the constitution in this particular circumstance?" I think it should be obvious that if some restrictions are allowed (and it is obvious they should) then this should be one of those obvious restrictions. No one should be able to villify a whole group of people by lying about them.

Pinkie said:
The people injured by the events in the Middle East last week (relatives of those slain) do not have a lawsuit against the maker of the film that touched off the outrage. This is because the US does not have jurisdiction over the film maker, who I gather is an Israeli citizen residing in Israel, and because the harm was not proximately caused by the film under US law.

I made no such assumption. The OP simply asked whether it should be a crime to criticize Mohammed (or presumably, by extension, Islam). I said no, it should not be a crime, except where there is a blatant lie told in order to incite violence.

Pinkie said:
If there is a right to rely, deliberate or negligent untruths and harm as a result, then yes, you can sue for false or misleading language. Nobody has a constitutional right to falsely claim "made of 22 carat gold", etc.

If you believe this, I'm not sure about the nature of your disagreement with my position (if indeed you do disagree). Please clarify.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

If you believe this, I'm not sure about the nature of your disagreement with my position (if indeed you do disagree). Please clarify.

Let's say I tell you it's raining here in Cleveland and you buy stock in a local umbrella outlet as a result.

It's not raining; I lied and you lose money.

So far so good -- you have me telling a deliberate untruth and you relied and you were harmed. Can you sue me?

No, because I had no duty to tell you the truth.

In short, it's a very, very, very small class of lies that will support a lawsuit.
 
I made no such assumption. The OP simply asked whether it should be a crime to criticize Mohammed (or presumably, by extension, Islam). I said no, it should not be a crime, except where there is a blatant lie told in order to incite violence.

No, I have every right to lie freely as long as you have no right to rely on my statements. If you are Muslim and I lie about your faith and you lose your job or suffer in some other way as a result, you might be able to sue me for harrassment or invasion of privacy, etc.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Actually, I find the constitution almost singularly unclear on the topic. The relevant language states:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

"Freedom" and "Liberty" meant, and should still mean, different things. "Liberty" was, in the parlance of the Englightenment, much more broad than "Freedom." To understand why, I recommend John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding." You'll find the relevant chapter in the second book.

Consider also that it should be simple common sense that the clause cannot be interpretted to protect the notion that a person cannot be held legally liable for anything they say. For example: suppose you are on trial for murder, and the witnesses for the prosecution all testify to evidence against you that is completely false, but which persuades a jury to send you to death row. Clearly, the clause is not meant to cover that kind of speech. But if not, then we have to have a discussion about which kinds of speech are protected and which arent't, since clearly, we cannot say that it should be all kinds of speech.

The amendment covers the government. It shall make no law abrideging Freedom of speech. Joe Blow in your case can sue the hell out of the whoever wronged him and make an appeal on that basis if he has proof. We dont have to have ANY dicusion.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

My freedom of speech allows me to tell you that your ignorance of Islam is showing, and that I dislike anyone using this topic as an excuse to parade their bigotry.

Originally Posted by DaveFagan
I am amazed that there are 3 votes for yes. I mean ya gotta speak nice about Muhammed and the Tooth Fairy. Especially fairies. Let's not be suggesting that Muhammed was a pedophile because Aisha was only 9 years old. Heaven forbid! I don't really know, but I think the AssCrack worshippers need to be treated as well. Keerist, where's a good fumigator when you need one? I think the key word is "treated."

""My freedom of speech allows me to tell you that your ignorance of Islam is showing, and that I dislike anyone using this topic as an excuse to parade their bigotry. ""

Please identify the alleged bigotry. I have presented some plausible scenarios with simple common sense logic and humor and you see bigotry. I don't. So please enlighten me as to your perspective in detail. Perhaps the paragraph is a paradigm of which I am unaware. Thank you,
 
Back
Top Bottom