Should we flood the world with images of Muhammed?

Hatuey said:

SOS Racisme? Do you know their history with the Socialist Party in France and quotas? The people who have problem "fighting" anti-semitism but will support islamophobia? Forgive if I don't take their opinion on who is and isn't racist with anything but a grain of salt. These are the sorts I was discussing. I saw the video and it doesn't change my opinion. People like this coming to the defense of CH are just part of the mostly white French cultural elite who feel that if someone sometimes says something mean about a white person, racism should become palatable to minorities.* That simply doesn't hold true for me in the least bit because I see it as a continuation of a larger xenophobic and racist tradition within media.

*(Granted, the speaker wasn't white then again - their Republican views on meritocracy and message wouldn't gather many donations if the figurehead was a white French man)

Click to expand...

The figure head is a white French man. The organisation was founded by Bernard Henri Levy.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that CH was the opposite of racist. I know that we disagree on that and that's fine. They do have a very specific, very French style that does not translate well outside its borders and even within the country they are highly controversial. I think you misinterpret their intentions and assign them some nefarious agenda that they simply are not a part of.

Dragonfly said:

Or, they see that billions and billions support free speech and will not cower to religious subjugation and they turn their efforts towards something more productive.

Who knows.

Click to expand...

Indeed, it's possible. Though I doubt that terrorists are rational. But as I said, just because it could turn out badly is no reason to avoid trying it in this case.

apdst said:

Free speech always has some regulation with you people.

Click to expand...

"You people"?

There is nothing on earth that is sacred absolutely, there is nothing on earth that should be above the law. If a journalists writes something with the express purpose to incite violence towards a certain person/a group of people then at least a court has to be able to look at whether or not a law has been broken.

If you slander/defame someone in the US you also can be held accountable (even though in the US the level of evidence needs to be very high to get this kind of conviction). And in several states it is possible to be prosecuted for criminal defamation.

Free speech should not be absolute, you cannot hide behind the law as a journalist if you rile people up to commit crimes or murder. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute freedom of speech can be absolutely dangerous if it is not done responsibly.

matchlight said:

Please. Don't blasphemers deserve to die? Those dogs who were slaughtered were enemies of the Faith. I find your suggestions that the acts you mention are anything worse than an ardent expression of religious belief to be very offensive. And as I'm sure you'd agree, speech which offends anyone should never be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Read it again. I think you might be struggling with some comprehension problems.

Dragonfly said:

yes - because killing people because people are killing people makes a ton of sense. :roll:

Click to expand...

Along with the cartoon, do you suggest sticking out your tongue and making a funny face as well? If you are going to quote me, quote me.

There is a point to my statement. Suddenly people are acting like Facebook posts, tweets and instagram posts are meaningful. They are nonsense and not meaningful. Michele Obama tweeted something about "our girls", when Boko Haram kidnapped the young women in Africa, as if it were meaningful and would result in anyones safety. Nobody cares about a tweet. ISIS could care less about the cartoon in their quest of territory in an attempt to build a caliphate. In the long run the pencil is not more powerful than smart bombs and bullets and the people who are stoning, burning and crucifying Christians, raping women and marrying little girls could make the world a better place by being blown to bits.

[

PoS said:

I think a few Muslims have become intolerant simply because they feel disrespected by the West and quite a few of their countries are occupied by Western militaries and people are dying over there.

Click to expand...

PARIS: The attackers who stormed the Paris offices of satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, killing 12 people, shouted "we have avenged the prophet", according to witnesses cited by a police source.

In a video of the attack filmed by a man taking refuge on a nearby rooftop, the men can be heard shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greatest) between rounds of heavy arms fire.

Click to expand...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-Hebdo-office-attack/articleshow/45795006.cms

Yeah, clearly a case of blowback from foreign policy Your reflexive deflection to the West and foreign policy is again noted.

Arcana XV said:

The figure head is a white French man. The organisation was founded by Bernard Henri Levy.

Click to expand...

I meant this guy:

Julien Dray

Anyway, all I'm saying is that CH was the opposite of racist. I know that we disagree on that and that's fine. They do have a very specific, very French style that does not translate well outside its borders and even within the country they are highly controversial. I think you misinterpret their intentions and assign them some nefarious agenda that they simply are not a part of.

Click to expand...

I assign based on what I see. Their brothers and sisters in the PQ in Canada tried to tear the province apart a few months ago over the French language, religion and race. They were voted out of office recently because they were simply seen as a bunch of racists trying to wash the history of both Quebec and Montreal with chamois leather. So I most definitely understand the type of French racism we're discussing here and I simply don't buy the French brand. Here, I welcome you to read this so you can see why I don't have any sympathy for SOS Racisme and French Republicanism:

The core of Quebec

The reaction to the court decision was swift and nearly unanimous. Leading activists and intellectuals – including former head of SOS Racisme and current Socialist Party chairman Harlem Désir – signed a petition calling for a reaffirmation of French secularism. Meanwhile, polls show that more than 80 per cent of French voters support extending the ban on religious symbols, which, since 2010, has included a prohibition on covering one’s face in public.

You cannot begin to understand the debate surrounding the Parti Québécois’s proposed Charter of Quebec Values without an appreciation of French republicanism and its influence in Quebec. Both France and Quebec are post-Catholic societies that threw off the shackles of the church. The backlash came later in Quebec, but it was even more virulent.

Click to expand...

France's cultural elite wants it both ways, they ban the veil, which women can CHOOSE to wear as part of their free speech, and then they want to act offended when others aren't respectful of their freedom of speech. That's not the concept of free speech I'm willing to stand beside. One which picks and chooses which speech is acceptable and which isn't.

VanceMack said:

Read it again. I think you might be struggling with some comprehension problems.

Click to expand...

No, more problems with being a wiseacre, I think. Let me take my tongue out of my cheek and say I agree with what you said in your post. The notion that the U.S. caused modern jihadism is anti-American propaganda.This jihadism has its roots in a fundamentalist and extremely violent interpretation of the Koran and hadiths that began to crop up here and there in the Muslim world a long time ago. It was fueled by resentment of Western powers who had come into Muslim lands, as well as shame and anger that the once-great Arab world had become so weak and backwards in comparison to them. And various radical Islamist writers began to preach the virtues of violent action.

Modern Islamist violence has been going on for at least since the days of the Mahdi in Sudan in the late 1800's, and it has only gotten more bloodthirsty. During WWII, Ruhollah Khomeini and Mohammed Navab-Safavi had formed a "Soldiers of Islam" jihadist cell that was murdering Muslims they considered heretics. By the end of the war, jihadists in Egypt were fomenting riots in Western and especially Jewish areas of Cairo, burning down many businesses and murdering Jews. The U.S. can't possibly have had anything to do with that. And I could give many more examples of the same kind of thing. The official version of the average leftist, anti-American dim bulb whose "knowledge" comes from Michael Moore films is that the U.S. brought all this on itself, including 9/11. Whether that claim is the product of malice or just simple ignorance, it is a vicious lie that helps our enemies.

Hatuey said:

they ban the veil, which women can CHOOSE to wear as part of their free speech, and then they want to act offended when others aren't respectful of their freedom of speech. That's not the concept of free speech I'm willing to stand beside. One which picks and chooses which speech is acceptable and which isn't.

Click to expand...

The United States has decided what sorts of speech the First Amendment protects, how far it protects them, and what sorts of speech it does not protect at all. The Framers of the Constitution picked and chose about the kinds of speech to protect--but they strongly limited the authority of government to regulate thecontent of the kinds of speech that are protected. There is almost no right to pick and choose about that here, but I don't pretend to know French law on the subject.

France, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine what kinds of speech to allow by law and what to prohibit. Contrary to what you claim, wearing the veil, at least in certain places like schools, obviously is NOT a form of speech anyone has a legal right to in France. To say a person is free to engage in speech and also to say that speech is banned makes no sense.

matchlight said:

The United States has decided what sorts of speech the First Amendment protects, how far it protects them, and what sorts of speech it does not protect at all. The Framers of the Constitution picked and chose about the kinds of speech to protect--but they strongly limited the authority of government to regulate thecontent of the kinds of speech that are protected. There is almost no right to pick and choose about that here, but I don't pretend to know French law on the subject.

Click to expand...

Oh, but there is in France. For the French left, "freedom of religion" means freedom for the state to tell people how to practice their religion. That's why I don't buy this nonsense that the French have suddenly become a beacon of free speech. They simply aren't.

France, as a sovereign nation, has the right to determine what kinds of speech to allow by law and what to prohibit.

Click to expand...

That's great for them, but the issue here is that France is now pretending that they're supporters of freedom of speech when they REALLY aren't.

Contrary to what you claim, wearing the veil, at least in certain places like schools, obviously is NOT a form of speech anyone has a legal right to in France. To say a person is free to engage in speech and also to say that speech is banned makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, France is full of a **** when it comes to "free speech". They simply don't endorse it. However, we must all pretend that they do because of this Charlie Hebdo thing. If you'd like to read the list of censored stuff in France:

French ban on face covering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laws against Holocaust denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Censorship in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There you go.

Peter King said:

"You people"?

There is nothing on earth that is sacred absolutely, there is nothing on earth that should be above the law. If a journalists writes something with the express purpose to incite violence towards a certain person/a group of people then at least a court has to be able to look at whether or not a law has been broken.

If you slander/defame someone in the US you also can be held accountable (even though in the US the level of evidence needs to be very high to get this kind of conviction). And in several states it is possible to be prosecuted for criminal defamation.

Free speech should not be absolute, you cannot hide behind the law as a journalist if you rile people up to commit crimes or murder. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute freedom of speech can be absolutely dangerous if it is not done responsibly.

Click to expand...

Yes, "you people". Don't be a drama queen. Please?

Free speech is sacred. Even I'd you don't like it, or it pisses you off, its sacred.

Incitement of criminal activity isn't free speech.

apdst said:

Yes, "you people". Don't be a drama queen. Please?

Free speech is sacred. Even I'd you don't like it, or it pisses you off, its sacred.

Incitement of criminal activity isn't free speech.

Click to expand...

Nothing at all drama queen about it, if anything it is your drama queen attitude with the "you people" that was the issue.

Free speech is not sacred, it is one of the highest valued things on this planet next to freedom but as said, there is no absolute free speech IMHO. All speech is limited to some degree, if only for your own moral internal guide.

Sorry, but even Adolf Hilter used free speech, does not mean what he said is something that should be held as sacred.

Peter King said:

Nothing at all drama queen about it, if anything it is your drama queen attitude with the "you people" that was the issue.

Free speech is not sacred, it is one of the highest valued things on this planet next to freedom but as said, there is no absolute free speech IMHO. All speech is limited to some degree, if only for your own moral internal guide.

Sorry, but even Adolf Hilter used free speech, does not mean what he said is something that should be held as sacred.

Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between free speech and the incitement of violence.

Just because you people don't like it, doesn't mean that you get to suppress a person's right to say it.

See? Here in America, most of us understand the difference. You people do not.

spangledbanner said:

We Australians are not American or French and this type of thing is illegal in Australia. Charlie Hedbo could not have published his trash in Australia or he would have been arrested. We have laws that make his type of trash illegal. In Australia you cannot use media to insult or humiliate people.

Do you French and Americans want to start insulting Aboriginals do you? If you have such freedom to be obnoxious then what is all the fuss over the Redskins logo?

Is attacking African Americans with media an act of freedom and artistic expression? This is what the world has come to with USA leading and France as "the capital of the world" is it? You French and Americans have the right to be offensive, obnoxious and provocative and this is freedom is it? Well not in Australia. Us Aussies disagree with your uncivilized idea of freedom.

Click to expand...

maybe we should ridicule any government that has such idiotic restrictions on speech

apdst said:

Obviously, you don't understand the difference between free speech and the incitement of violence.

Just because you people don't like it, doesn't mean that you get to suppress a person's right to say it.

See? Here in America, most of us understand the difference. You people do not.

Click to expand...

Obviously you do not understand the difference between free speech and horrendous abuse of free speech.

Just you because you people, don't want to get it, does not mean that a lot of countries and a lot of people have to bow down to your views of a sacred uninhibited free speech. With great power comes great responsibility IMHO, and with freedom of speech comes the right of others to limit that speech that goes against other equally important rights that people have.

See? Most people know that there is more to this world than free speech with no limitations. You people who think speech is the one big right that goes about all other rights is sacrosanct, forget that freedom of speech is just one of the basic human rights.

I know exactly what is the difference between freedom of speech and horrendous abuse of free speech, sadly you think some things are free speech whereas I see them as a horrendous and horrible abuse of free speech.

TurtleDude said:

maybe we should ridicule any government that has such idiotic restrictions on speech

Click to expand...

Maybe then those governments/people can ridicule any government that does not have any reasonable restrictions.

Peter King said:

Maybe then those governments/people can ridicule any government that does not have any reasonable restrictions.

Click to expand...

there are almost no reasonable restrictions on free speech

Peter King said:

Obviously you do not understand the difference between free speech and horrendous abuse of free speech.

Just you because you people, don't want to get it, does not mean that a lot of countries and a lot of people have to bow down to your views of a sacred uninhibited free speech. With great power comes great responsibility IMHO, and with freedom of speech comes the right of others to limit that speech that goes against other equally important rights that people have.

See? Most people know that there is more to this world than free speech with no limitations. You people who think speech is the one big right that goes about all other rights is sacrosanct, forget that freedom of speech is just one of the basic human rights.

I know exactly what is the difference between freedom of speech and horrendous abuse of free speech, sadly you think some things are free speech whereas I see them as a horrendous and horrible abuse of free speech.

Click to expand...

Why do I have to revere someone else's idol? That's ****ing ridiculous.

Peter King said:

Obviously you do not understand the difference between free speech and horrendous abuse of free speech.

Just you because you people, don't want to get it, does not mean that a lot of countries and a lot of people have to bow down to your views of a sacred uninhibited free speech. With great power comes great responsibility IMHO, and with freedom of speech comes the right of others to limit that speech that goes against other equally important rights that people have.

See? Most people know that there is more to this world than free speech with no limitations. You people who think speech is the one big right that goes about all other rights is sacrosanct, forget that freedom of speech is just one of the basic human rights.

I know exactly what is the difference between freedom of speech and horrendous abuse of free speech, sadly you think some things are free speech whereas I see them as a horrendous and horrible abuse of free speech.

Click to expand...

We ​understand that freedom of speech excludes speech that could cause physical harm. Aside from that, all speech is free, even if it pisses someone off.

whysoserious said:

Why do I have to revere someone else's idol? That's ****ing ridiculous.

Click to expand...

There you go, fellow American!

a351 said:

[

Paris attackers shouted 'we have avenged the prophet': Police on Charlie Hebdo office attack - The Times of India

Yeah, clearly a case of blowback from foreign policy Your reflexive deflection to the West and foreign policy is again noted.

Click to expand...

Every motive has a source:

The militants who terrorised France for three days

At his trial in 2008, Kouachi said he was spurred to act by the abuse of detainees by US troops at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, but was relieved he did not have to go through with the trip.

Click to expand...

Yup, its blowback alright.

Peter King said:

Maybe then those governments/people can ridicule any government that does not have any reasonable restrictions.

Click to expand...

That's how freedom of speech works. People can ridicule anything tey want, no matter how stupid their comments may be.

TurtleDude said:

there are almost no reasonable restrictions on free speech

Click to expand...

Well, that is where you and I disagree.

Reasonable restrictions:

1. Hate Imams
2. extremist racist texts and extremist anti-Jewish texts
3. Westboro baptist church, I have no problem with denying them their free speech if it at a funeral of a US soldier

And those are just a few that I think are very reasonable, but only if the courts agree that what was done was a breach of the reasonable restrictions on misuse of freedom of speech. Don't get me wrong, in the privacy of someone's home that person is free to say whatever he thinks about gays, blacks, Jews, Muslims, catholics, protestants, republicans, democrats, but as soon as he goes out in public and says things that violate the law, then that person can be brought into court and be prosecuted for it. If the courts decide that according to the law it is free speech then that person is free to go. If he has violated the law, then he can get a fine or a suspended sentence for it.

But this must not be seen as something that is done to quash free speech but only done if it so egregiously violates the most basic rights that are also guaranteed under the constitution, then and only then must a judiciary intervene. Not as a tool by the government to silence people who disagree with them, but by courts as the defender of all the rights mentioned in our constitution.

whysoserious said:

Why do I have to revere someone else's idol? That's ****ing ridiculous.

Click to expand...

You do not have to revere anything, especially as I was not aware you were "forced to have to revere someone else's idol".

BTW, the same goes the other way around too. It is ****ing ridiculous that I should have to revere someone else's idol.

apdst said:

We ​understand that freedom of speech excludes speech that could cause physical harm. Aside from that, all speech is free, even if it pisses someone off.

Click to expand...

As is your right, and it is the right of other countries to have some other definition of what free speech should be. Even if that pisses someone else off.