• 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
Who argued yes?

Haven't you?

Pretty much anyone who argues in favor of hate speech laws, or argues that the guy who made the video be jailed for making it, or argues that we should not be free to criticize Muhammed based on the potential reactions of people half a world away is arguing "yes".
 
Last edited:
Who argued yes?

I have a list, if you need to see it.

Some were apparently not Americans, so possibly they can be excused. But others are pleading with their fellow US citizens to appease the ME fundies because "freedom of speech just doesn't matter as much as human lives."

Apparently, the whole premise of WW II escapes these idijits.
 
Haven't you?

Pretty much anyone who argues in favor of hate speech laws, or argues that the guy who made the video be jailed for making it, or argues that we should not be free to criticize Muhammed based on the potential reactions of people half a world away is arguing "yes".

See, you're not paying attention to what I am saying, you're just reading parts of it and lumping me in with preconceived stereotypes.

What I said is that we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to freedom of speech than this. In a idea world, freedom of speech would be absolute. It isn't, and I have a hard time caring about the rights of some asshole who wants to incite violence when the rights of honest people to put nudity and curse words on tv is still being infringed.
 
Hell no!

Why don't we just make it illegal to insult any religion? I mean why play favorites? This is getting stupid. We do not appease terrorists which is what the Islamists involved in the violence are acting like, period.
 
In other words, "yes".

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.
 
See, you're not paying attention to what I am saying, you're just reading parts of it and lumping me in with preconceived stereotypes.

What I said is that we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to freedom of speech than this. In a idea world, freedom of speech would be absolute. It isn't, and I have a hard time caring about the rights of some asshole who wants to incite violence when the rights of honest people to put nudity and curse words on tv is still being infringed.

Game. Set. Match.
 
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.

We get it.

You want us to surrender our freedom of speech "but only when it might offend a ME fundie."

You are a weak-minded man who lacks patriotism, and yet, I will still defend your right to say such annoying things.
 
I'm really only interested in discussing this with X, honestly. Although he disagrees with me, he is civil and fair minded.
 
What really irks me is the hypocrisy of an argument in defense of this guy's right to indirectly incite violence , only too happy to become free speech champions the minute it coincides with a chance to bash Islam. But talk to these same folks about nudity or cursing on TV, and they're right there with an excuse for censorship. Priorities, people!
 
What really irks me is the hypocrisy of an argument in defense of this guy's right to indirectly incite violence , only too happy to become free speech champions the minute it coincides with a chance to bash Islam. But talk to these same folks about nudity or cursing on TV, and they're right there with an excuse for censorship. Priorities, people!

I think private TV network should be able to display whatever they want. Some are able to (like HBO regularly has full nudity). Doesn't the government partially fund the broadcasting for the basic channels though? I think that's how they are allowed to force certain types of censorship.
 
See, you're not paying attention to what I am saying, you're just reading parts of it and lumping me in with preconceived stereotypes.

What I said is that we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to freedom of speech than this. In a idea world, freedom of speech would be absolute. It isn't, and I have a hard time caring about the rights of some asshole who wants to incite violence when the rights of honest people to put nudity and curse words on tv is still being infringed.

And yet you don't seem to have that same hard time having deep concern for the feelings of extremist assholes who oppress, assault, vandalize even kill others based on their gender, religion, political views, sexual orientation etc.

I'm really only interested in discussing this with X, honestly. Although he disagrees with me, he is civil and fair minded.

I have a feeling you're about to change your mind. Lol.
 
Last edited:
What really irks me is the hypocrisy of an argument in defense of this guy's right to indirectly incite violence , only too happy to become free speech champions the minute it coincides with a chance to bash Islam. But talk to these same folks about nudity or cursing on TV, and they're right there with an excuse for censorship. Priorities, people!

Link, or it didn't happen.
 
I think private TV network should be able to display whatever they want. Some are able to (like HBO regularly has full nudity). Doesn't the government partially fund the broadcasting for the basic channels though? I think that's how they are allowed to force certain types of censorship.

As a libertarian, I feel that any government regulation of airwaves is an unjust infringement of freedom of speech. And I fully understand that this would make it a battle of broadcasters to see who can build the most powerful broadcasting equipment to drown the other guys out. But that is the free market at work, it is liberty.

You get the government sticking there finger in things just a little bit, ostensibly to regulate the marketplace for the purported good of the consumer, and the next thing you know, censorship.

Meanwhile, a demagogue with an axe to grind is putting out trash in the hope that it will spark violence, and remarkably enough it does. And he's got legions of right wingers out to defend him.

Yes, because it was indirect, and the odds of his video catching on like it did are so slim, it seems like protected speech. But it is borderline. Even the most ardent free speech proponent will not argue for freedom to yell fire in a crowded room. This filmmaker didn't do that, but not for lack of trying.

So who are all these people coming out of the woodwork to defend free speech in the disgusting case of almost-unprotected incitement? And why? And where are they when free speech really needs defending (but there are no Muslims to bash)?
 
I think private TV network should be able to display whatever they want. Some are able to (like HBO regularly has full nudity). Doesn't the government partially fund the broadcasting for the basic channels though? I think that's how they are allowed to force certain types of censorship.

The government does not censor television any longer, as far as I know. When it did, it premised that on the argument that a broadcasting license should be used for the benefit of society as well as to make a profit.
 
As a libertarian, I feel that any government regulation of airwaves is an unjust infringement of freedom of speech. And I fully understand that this would make it a battle of broadcasters to see who can build the most powerful broadcasting equipment to drown the other guys out. But that is the free market at work, it is liberty.

You get the government sticking there finger in things just a little bit, ostensibly to regulate the marketplace for the purported good of the consumer, and the next thing you know, censorship.

Meanwhile, a demagogue with an axe to grind is putting out trash in the hope that it will spark violence, and remarkably enough it does. And he's got legions of right wingers out to defend him.

Yes, because it was indirect, and the odds of his video catching on like it did are so slim, it seems like protected speech. But it is borderline. Even the most ardent free speech proponent will not argue for freedom to yell fire in a crowded room. This filmmaker didn't do that, but not for lack of trying.

So who are all these people coming out of the woodwork to defend free speech in the disgusting case of almost-unprotected incitement? And why? And where are they when free speech really needs defending (but there are no Muslims to bash)?

So, now I'm a bigot?

Dream on, buddy. And even if I were, a la the Westboro Baptist Church, so what?
 
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.

Is "nuance" some newfangled word for "double talk"?
 
And yet you don't seem to have that same hard time having deep concern for the feelings of extremist assholes who oppress, assault, vandalize even kill others based on their gender, religion, political views, sexual orientation etc.

I'm not concerned about their feelings, I'm concerned about their lives and the lives of those they are going to hurt and kill in their rioting. It's basic human compassion.

Why get so worked up to defend this guy's right to do the despicable thing he did? What exactly is going on to infringe his rights, anyway, is there some serious danger that disparaging religious figures is going to become a crime?

What kind of person is willing to scream and holler to defend somebody that purposefully incites riots on free speech grounds, but will not do the same for cursing on television?


I have a feeling you're about to change your mind. Lol.

Why, you planning to stop being civil?
 
Last edited:
See, you're not paying attention to what I am saying, you're just reading parts of it and lumping me in with preconceived stereotypes.

What I said is that we have bigger fish to fry when it comes to freedom of speech than this.

What do YOU value more than our freedom?
 
So, now I'm a bigot?

Dream on, buddy. And even if I were, a la the Westboro Baptist Church, so what?

Now, Come on, Pinkster. As a "libertarian" he offers his full support to the Islamists who want to make pretty much everything illegal, and if you don't agree with that particular brand of jack booted totalitarianism, you MUST be a bigot.

It would all make perfect sense if you would only take enough drugs.
 
What kind of person is willing to scream and holler to defend somebody that purposefully incites riots on free speech grounds, but will not do the same for cursing on television?

When did I defend tv censorship, pray tell?
 
Back
Top Bottom