• 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?

Gardener said:
I guess the question I would ask, then, is why it was necessary to shield him from view in the first place? Make no mistake -- I have nothing but complete admiration for those who volunteer their time to act as human shields against these vile things -- but if the very fact that they are doing so is what allows the things to continue their actions, then perhaps it is counter productive in the long run.
Click to expand...

I suspect that if the media would stop sensationalizing the issue, and people would ignore them, for the most part, much of it would just fade away. That's the problem with being outraged- it feeds the fire of those that the outrage is directed against.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

lizzie said:
I suspect that if the media would stop sensationalizing the issue, and people would ignore them, for the most part, much of it would just fade away. That's the problem with being outraged- it feeds the fire of those that the outrage is directed against.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It was William Randolph Hearst who said, "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." All fodder for rageful vengeance over nothing.

The Press: I'll Furnish the War - TIME
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

lizzie said:
I suspect that if the media would stop sensationalizing the issue, and people would ignore them, for the most part, much of it would just fade away. That's the problem with being outraged- it feeds the fire of those that the outrage is directed against.
Click to expand...

Good point. How many members do they even have? Like 50 (at the most)? Yet they gain national attention pretty much any time they want it. It's like feeding real life trolls.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

X Factor said:
Good point. How many members do they even have? Like 50 (at the most)? Yet they gain national attention pretty much any time they want it. It's like feeding real life trolls.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what it is. They are pretty much a bunch of attention whores, who have no real objective except to get in the news, and make a statement based on absolute idiocy. I seriously have my doubts about even the "religious" aspects of their little show, and view it as a sort of sideshow for publicity.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I think the people who made this movie defaming Mohammed are real pricks.

It would be nice if more people weren't pricks.

But should being a prick illegal? Hell, no.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

German guy said:
I think the people who made this movie defaming Mohammed are real pricks.

It would be nice if more people weren't pricks.

But should being a prick illegal? Hell, no.
Click to expand...

Yeah, banning tends to have an undesired outcome, as it makes people rebel and become even bigger pricks than they already are, lol.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

PirateMk1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once again, "Freedom" did not mean, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, what it means today. By that I mean that the definition of the word itself has evolved over time. It would not have been meant to cover many of the cases you probably think it should. "Liberty" would have been the less restricted word.

So, in your opinion, perjury should not be a crime? Nor slander or libel? Fraud? Or, how about this: why do we keep Charles Manson locked up? All he did was talk--he never participated in the killings.

I think it should be clear your position is absurd.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Pinke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well...again, if we're discussing the interpretation of the first amendment, I agree. I specifically said that lying should be permitted, but lying to incite violence should not. In the latter case, however, it should merely be a matter of being able to bring a civil suit. It should also mean jail-time.

However, in an ideal world, where we are free to imagine an entirely different set of laws, I believe a much larger class of lies ought to become illegal as well.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

ashurbanipal said:
Well...again, if we're discussing the interpretation of the first amendment, I agree. I specifically said that lying should be permitted, but lying to incite violence should not. In the latter case, however, it should merely be a matter of being able to bring a civil suit. It should also mean jail-time.

However, in an ideal world, where we are free to imagine an entirely different set of laws, I believe a much larger class of lies ought to become illegal as well.
Click to expand...

The bolded would require that legal authorities could prove intent to cause violence, based on outcome, and if we were to go there, then virtually anytime someone had their feelings hurt, and decided to go ape**** on someone they didn't agree with, their violent actions could be considered justified. I vehemently oppose a situation where intent could be determined by someone else's inability to control their impulses.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Gardener said:
I do, too, for the reason that what they are doing is stalking and harassment rather than indulging in free speech. They are purposely intruding upon the lives of others rather than voicing their opinions in such a way that others are free to take them or leave them. If I were to post some idiotic youtube piece, people are free to take it or leave it. If I followed people around harassing them with the same idiocy to the point they could not avoid me, I would be transgressing.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, I didn't read the brief of the court case so I don't know why the judge sided with them but the WBC are all lawyers so I'm sure they knew exactly where the line was and pushed it to that limit for a a lawsuit. They aren't christians in any true sense of the word and if god struck 'em all down tomorrow few tears woud be shed.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Pinkie said:
I agree and I think that decision should have been decided differently (and likely would have been, on better facts). But even if it had, that would in no way lead anyone with any logic to conclude that any US speech which MIGHT offend another person on Planet Earth with any known propensity for violence should also be illegal.

I don't think people are thinking this through. Apart from the strategic error of trying to appease a bully, the speech that'd become illegal wouldn't simply be remarks trashing the Prophet Muhammed. It'd also be speech condemning polygamy, favoring women's rights, supporting gay rights, etc. As so many Ayatollehs have been at pains to remind us, they find almost everything about the USA worthy of condemnation.
Click to expand...
You hit a bullseye here Pinkie. If protected speech which falls under the SLAPS test(Serious Literary Artistic Political Scientific) and has the highest scope of protection can be violated "for safety" it opens the door for further violations. Any speech out of context can potentially offend someone, it isn't even close to worth banning speech because it offends someone.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I don't see how we could legitimately infringe upon free speech on this subject. Those speaking out are not responsible for the irrational reactions of others.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Fair said:
Yes
Abbas Barzegar has written Nothing Farcical About anti-Muhammad Film which discusses the free speech versus hate speech implications of this film:
Click to expand...
How does "Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Muhammed" equate to hate speech?
Should Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Christianity also be outlawed?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No...Free Speech and freedom of religion is part of the fabric of our country.

We have free speech to be able to say controversial things without fear of arrest. We don't have free speech to talk about trivial things.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?




What about Comedians then when they make Fun of People and races? Whats Next.....I know what you are thinking?
dontknow.gif
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

lizzie said:
The bolded would require that legal authorities could prove intent to cause violence, based on outcome, and if we were to go there, then virtually anytime someone had their feelings hurt, and decided to go ape**** on someone they didn't agree with, their violent actions could be considered justified. I vehemently oppose a situation where intent could be determined by someone else's inability to control their impulses.
Click to expand...

I don't think the case is quite so bad. We try to infer intent all the time in other situations in order to determine the extent of a particular crime. For example: a man fires a gun through a wall into a room in which he knows another man is standing. The other man is killed. We have at least four possibilities:

1) The gun went off accidentally, and the man therefore had no intent to cause harm.

2) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger thought the bullet wouldn't go through the drywall, or some other demonstrably absurd belief.

3) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger only intended to scare the other man.

4) The gun was fired deliberately, and the man who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other man.

And in fact, these possibilities just scratch the surface. However, there is a clear difference between what we do with the man holding the gun that killed victim under each situation.

It would be very easy to distinguish a case of me insulting someone else but not intending to incite violence vs. me lying about person A to incite person B to do violence on A. Your objection seems to rely on us being unable to form a theory of someone's mind based on available evidence. If such a principle were to hold, there would be no difference between what we'd do to the man who was holding the gun in situations 1-4, above. Ergo, unless you are prepared to claim that either murderers should walk free or people who accidentally shoot others (the point being, the case is truly accidental) should receive the same penalty as a murderer, your objection is specious.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

ashurbanipal said:
I don't think the case is quite so bad. We try to infer intent all the time in other situations in order to determine the extent of a particular crime. For example: a man fires a gun through a wall into a room in which he knows another man is standing. The other man is killed. We have at least four possibilities:

1) The gun went off accidentally, and the man therefore had no intent to cause harm.

2) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger thought the bullet wouldn't go through the drywall, or some other demonstrably absurd belief.

3) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger only intended to scare the other man.

4) The gun was fired deliberately, and the man who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other man.

And in fact, these possibilities just scratch the surface. However, there is a clear difference between what we do with the man holding the gun that killed victim under each situation.

It would be very easy to distinguish a case of me insulting someone else but not intending to incite violence vs. me lying about person A to incite person B to do violence on A. Your objection seems to rely on us being unable to form a theory of someone's mind based on available evidence. If such a principle were to hold, there would be no difference between what we'd do to the man who was holding the gun in situations 1-4, above. Ergo, unless you are prepared to claim that either murderers should walk free or people who accidentally shoot others (the point being, the case is truly accidental) should receive the same penalty as a murderer, your objection is specious.
Click to expand...

Excellent post. That sums up the situation very well.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Uh, no.

People need to learn how to deal with others not kowtowing to their beliefs like adults.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

ashurbanipal said:
I don't think the case is quite so bad. We try to infer intent all the time in other situations in order to determine the extent of a particular crime. For example: a man fires a gun through a wall into a room in which he knows another man is standing. The other man is killed. We have at least four possibilities:

1) The gun went off accidentally, and the man therefore had no intent to cause harm.

2) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger thought the bullet wouldn't go through the drywall, or some other demonstrably absurd belief.

3) The gun was fired deliberately, but the man who pulled the trigger only intended to scare the other man.

4) The gun was fired deliberately, and the man who pulled the trigger intended to kill the other man.

And in fact, these possibilities just scratch the surface. However, there is a clear difference between what we do with the man holding the gun that killed victim under each situation.

It would be very easy to distinguish a case of me insulting someone else but not intending to incite violence vs. me lying about person A to incite person B to do violence on A. Your objection seems to rely on us being unable to form a theory of someone's mind based on available evidence. If such a principle were to hold, there would be no difference between what we'd do to the man who was holding the gun in situations 1-4, above. Ergo, unless you are prepared to claim that either murderers should walk free or people who accidentally shoot others (the point being, the case is truly accidental) should receive the same penalty as a murderer, your objection is specious.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a good analogy. A bullet has no sentience and the guy pulling the trigger is in complete control over whether the bullet gets fired. Insulting someone is not the same. The reaction of the one insulted is not like a bullet they have a choice on what they do. Yes incitement to violence is a crime but insulting somone is not the same thing as incitement to violence. The ones urging muslims in various countries to use violence and attack americans are the people who are doing the incitement to violence some guy who made a film insulting their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Quag said:
I don't think this is a good analogy. A bullet has no sentience and the guy pulling the trigger is in complete control over whether the bullet gets fired. Insulting someone is not the same. The reaction of the one insulted is not like a bullet they have a choice on what they do. Yes incitement to violence is a crime but insulting somone is not the same thing as incitement to violence. The ones urging muslims in various countries to use violence and attack americans are the people who are doing the incitement to violence some guy who made a film insulting their beliefs.
Click to expand...

It's not intended to be an analogy. It's intended to show that intent can be, and should be, discerned when deciding on many types of crime. There was an objection that seemed to be based on the notion that we would overburden our epistemic faculties to try to determine intent. I was pointing out that this is almost certainly wrong, and moreover, it is necessary to determine intent to avoid perpetrating miscarriages of justice.

Again...I haven't been discussing the film that has led to such furor. I've been discussing general principles, abstracted from specific situations. I think there are other reasons to suppose that incitement to violence should be considered a crime.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

No, it shouldn't be a crime. However, if someone knowingly did so to incite violence, then yes.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

LaMidRighter said:
I hated "Piss Christ" and despise much of the modern art movement, while I'd love to knock a few teeth loose on the PC creator it is protected speech. Protecting speech that is benign is easy, it's when things get tough that we have to still protect the right. Long answer abridged, HELL NO, though I condemn an attack on any religion personally.
Click to expand...

You do realize Piss Christ was about the lack of respect for Christ, right?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

zstep18 said:
No, it shouldn't be a crime. However, if someone knowingly did so to incite violence, then yes.
Click to expand...

This movie was pretty blatant about being totally disrespectful. I think in the trailer, the main guy in the film (I think it was supposed to be Mohammed ) named a donkey a prophet. He defiantly made the movie with the intent of upsetting both Muslims and Jews. So do you think this movie producer should be punished for that?
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

RadicalModerate said:
This movie was pretty blatant about being totally disrespectful. I think in the trailer, the main guy in the film (I think it was supposed to be Mohammed ) named a donkey a prophet. He defiantly made the movie with the intent of upsetting both Muslims and Jews. So do you think this movie producer should be punished for that?
Click to expand...

Well, it's hard to prove that his intent was to incite violence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom