• 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?

lizzie said:
Intent to incite people to violence would have to be proven based on the outcome, and would be a subjective judgement on the individual being accused, so that would make the entire process unjust. Regardless of intent by someone who says something hateful, it is the responsibility of those offended to control their impulses to take violent action. They could respond in the same manner as the original offense was offered, but resorting to violence, in response to a non-violent action, regardless of whether or not the intent was to inflame, is an unreasonable response by the offended.

I disagree with the principles that seem to motivate your overall argument.

We are dependent creatures. We depend on each other for survival. People should get over that point. For anyone who thinks otherwise, I invite them to divest themselves of all goods which they didn't make themselves, and go straight into the closest available wilderness alone, and, accepting help or trade from no other human being, see how long they last. The simple fact of the matter is that human beings in such situations rarely last more than a few weeks. One or two exemplars out of a hundred thousand might make it a year.

Allowing trade would hardly improve matters, especially when compared to the survival of a group of people who had banded together for common cause. Again, this is just a plain fact, and whoever doesn't find it to be one of the central facts of civilization has little grasp of nature or history.

Human beings evolved language in order to communicate information. It's still an effective tool for that use. It provides immense survival value that other animals lack: it allows us to share experiences. So powerful is this facility of language to bring about positive survival outcomes that it has become essential to our very selves.

So here's the problem: consider the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Most people weren't there. They heard about it on the radio. America went to war on the basis of what they heard over the radio. And that was a reasonable reaction in most people's books. When attacked, it is usually necessary to respond with force or risk a much worse attack.

But suppose Pearl Harbor had never been bombed. Suppose it was all an elaborate hoax, perpetrated specifically to get the U.S. to go to war. All the information that most people ever received about Pearl Harbor could have been fabricated, and none of those who were recipients of the fabrication would have any clue that this would be so. It would still be a reasonable reaction for them to want to wage war. And that's why it should be a crime to incite violence by lying.

Insults are another matter. I have not, up to this point, discussed the film that seems to be at the back of the question in the OP. Insults seem to come in at least two kinds. Some of them are proceeded by or accompany violence. Others are not. Where they may be a herald of violence, or a reminder of violence already done, I think they can form a reasonable motive for violence. Of course, where that is not the case, then they do not form a reasonable motive for violence.

Suppose the case were turned around: imagine a group of Islamic filmmakers producing a film that lauded the actions of Al Qaeda on 9/11, gloating about how stupid Americans were for failing to see the attacks coming or stopping them, and how puny and weak and laughable all the victims were. How long do you think it would take before someone started wondering whether this group of film-makers was associated with Al Qaeda? Even in the case that they not only had no associations with any terrorist organization, they also intended to do absolutely no violence, how reasonable would it be of us to suppose they might be up to no good? How reasonable of us would it be to suppose they merited some kind of response? I don't think one can just so clearly say that it would be unreasonable of us to go after them.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

Simple answer is no. Same goes for burning the flag, burning the bible, and vulgar depictions of Jesus. None of these are criminal offenses.

However I do believe it's correct to discourage such displays of intolerance and hatred. Was Obama right in criticizing these people? yes. Should they be thrown in jail? probably not.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

The fact that I have the same opinion about free speech today as I did last week means I have been manipulated how, again?

I thought that was clear. The filmmaker has an agenda. He counts on responses such as yours to further it. And you oblige him.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

I thought that was clear. The filmmaker has an agenda. He counts on responses such as yours to further it. And you oblige him.

He doesn't need responses to further his right to free speech.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

He doesn't need responses to further his right to free speech.

His agenda is not to further freedom of speech.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

His agenda is not to further freedom of speech.

It doesn't matter if he has an *agenda* or not. He can say what he wants, regardless of his motive.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

His agenda is not to further freedom of speech.

Well, YOUR agenda certainly isn't, anyway.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

It doesn't matter if he has an *agenda* or not. He can say what he wants, regardless of his motive.

It amazes me how so many leftists take on the anti-liberal position whenever it comes to world affairs.
 
Re: Should The US Make Speech That's Critical or Disparaging of Mohammed a Crime?

It amazes me how so many leftists take on the anti-liberal position whenever it comes to world affairs.

Yeah, I know. It's kind of sad when you have to rely on people like me, who are old-fashioned and have religious tendencies, to further liberal causes. Champions of the left despise people like me, when we're the ones who support their freedom to speak their minds.
 
Should America restrict its free speech to stop hate speech etc, yes. People have proven throughout World and American history that they are too stupid to be able to handle absolute free speech.

Will America restrict it, no. End of discussion really
 
Should America restrict its free speech to stop hate speech etc, yes. People have proven throughout World and American history that they are too stupid to be able to handle absolute free speech.

Will America restrict it, no. End of discussion really

There are parameters around Freedom of Speech. There are also parameters around criminal behavior when objecting to that speech. It is up to the authorities to enforce the law to maintain the peace. Americans should not be punished because various people cannot control themselves and wreak havoc on society.
 
There are parameters around Freedom of Speech. There are also parameters around criminal behavior when objecting to that speech. It is up to the authorities to enforce the law to maintain the peace. Americans should not be punished because various people cannot control themselves and wreak havoc on society.

its just not something I can ever get my head around, its a system that protects groups like the KKK and allows people to preach hate against a minority etc. I'm all for free speech but in moderation, I personally dont believe the human race can be trusted with complete free speech.
 
People have proven throughout World and American history that they are too stupid to be able to handle absolute free speech.

You just said something bad about a group of people. That sure looks like hate speech to me.

It is time for Higgins to go to jail, now.
 
But it's not for the benefit of terrorist foreigners, its for the benefit of our soldiers and diplomats, and US tourists traveling overseas.

The insulting hackery of this thread is the "appeasing muslims" strawman argument. Nobody on the left has any desire to appease muslims, only to safeguard American lives and American interests abroad.

We can best safeguard American lives and interests abroad by spreading the concept of freedom, defended even at the cost of American lives. We would INVITE attacks on Americans and their interests if we undertook a program of appeasement, muzzling every type of speech Muslims in the ME might find offensive.

And personally, I see nothing especially "leftist" about advocating against freedom of speech.
 
its just not something I can ever get my head around, its a system that protects groups like the KKK and allows people to preach hate against a minority etc. I'm all for free speech but in moderation, I personally dont believe the human race can be trusted with complete free speech.

I understand that, but, that freedom of speech is one of the reasons the US and other like countries have been able to make advancements sociologically, in medicine and technology in how we as human beings. To abridge those freedoms would be to stunt the grow of a democratic society stands for. The people or groups that commit mayhem and murder because of words or ideals they do not like cannot dictate to a sovereign nation. such as the US. An effective protest can bring about change two examples in the US are the Vietnam protests and Civil Rights marches, those are example of freedom of Speech in action.

There are limitations to freedom of Speech, there is no such thing as complete free speech as far as I know.
 
You just said something bad about a group of people. That sure looks like hate speech to me.

It is time for Higgins to go to jail, now.

well no you can say bad things about people in other countries you just cant incite hate which is what of course this video did. Should the Muslims reacted differently to the video? Of course they should of. Should that video have been allowed to be made? No it shouldn't.
Im not going to push this issue far because I now how important complete free speech is in the US and your nvr going to agree with me, which is fair enough.
 
That is what I thought when I read the title.


Of course not what kind of question is this?

Tell you what, I'll run my next poll idea through you first to see if it meets with your approval. ;)
 
Tell you what, I'll run my next poll idea through you first to see if it meets with your approval. ;)
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....
 
well no you can say bad things about people in other countries you just cant incite hate which is what of course this video did. Should the Muslims reacted differently to the video? Of course they should of. Should that video have been allowed to be made? No it shouldn't.
Im not going to push this issue far because I now how important complete free speech is in the US and your nvr going to agree with me, which is fair enough.

The movie was about the life of a historical figure (or "an" historical figure if I wish to satisfy all dictates). As such, the reaction is entirely up to those who reacted, who were not maligned directly.

What so many of you fail to understand is that the adoption of an ideology is completely a matter of choice. Sure, hundreds of millions of Muslims DO NOT see it as choice, which is part and parcel of the problem we are dealing with in regards to their totalitarianism, but the fact remains that there is an enormous difference between expressing disgust with an ideology freely chosen and hate speech directed against people for those matters beyond their control. Just because you cannot understand this distinction, that doesn't mean others can't.
 
Last edited:
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....

Yeah, especially in light of the fact that they are now "democracies". ;)
 
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....................it is just an absurd concept that these fringe lunatics make demands that any democratic society change their ways because they will get mad if they hear something they do not like.....

Try skimming the thread, then tell me I was wrong to start a discussion about this. Geez.
 
I understand that, but, that freedom of speech is one of the reasons the US and other like countries have been able to make advancements sociologically, in medicine and technology in how we as human beings. To abridge those freedoms would be to stunt the grow of a democratic society stands for. The people or groups that commit mayhem and murder because of words or ideals they do not like cannot dictate to a sovereign nation. such as the US. An effective protest can bring about change two examples in the US are the Vietnam protests and Civil Rights marches, those are example of freedom of Speech in action.

There are limitations to freedom of Speech, there is no such thing as complete free speech as far as I know.

very true in regards to the civil rights marches but could you not also argue that it was your type of "freedom of speech" that allowed white people to ban people of colour from stores, public transport, schools etc in the first place.
 
Yeah, especially in light of the fact that they are now "democracies". ;)

And accept anything from the US that has to do with aid, commerce or matériel.
 
very true in regards to the civil rights marches but could you not also argue that it was your type of "freedom of speech" that allowed white people to ban people of colour from stores, public transport, schools etc in the first place.

And you could also argue that freedom of speech is what spurred justice and equality to be served in the very same issues.
 
Back
Top Bottom