D
DaveBj
Guest
That says more about the UK government’s fear of social reaction that it does about the rightness or wrongness of free speech.
Gunmen open fire on guard at controversial Muhammad exhibit; Vatican newspaper weighs in [CWN]
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
As others have pointed out, If the Islamic State disagrees with what someone says, they have the same free speech right in Civil way to state their side of the issue. They are free to engage in dialog, not violence.
When the Islamic State Jihadi’s choose to deliberately attack someone, Whatever happens is on those who perpetrate the violence, not on the speakers or cartoonists.
2 down 21 to go!
E
Ender
Guest
The alternative to unpleasant speech is suppression. If we give the power to censor speech to any committee or group we should expect to find it exercised in unpleasant ways. We already see this happening on some college campuses where opposition to gay marriage is considered hate speech.
The choice is between allowing raw and unpleasant speech, or the government controlling what speech is allowed. Choose one.
Ender
But you’re not talking about the right to free speech. You’re talking about license, which includes speech that can directly result in injury to others (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), slander (which injures someone’s reputation), and the like. While I have no time for the “artwork” that has the intention of being insulting, I also have no interest in seeing it restricted. The social contract in America in permits that type of speech.
We see people insult Christianity. We see people insult these United States. They can insult Mohammed if they want, too, and that right must be protected.
Jon
Britain can do as it chooses. They do not have a constitution that limits government and protects rights, as ours’s does. In the United States, political and religious speech cannot be restricted in this way.
The American concept of rights absolutely has responsibilities attached to them. To say other wise just isn’t factual.
For example, I know what my responsibilities are regarding my individual right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment. I have a responsibility to see to it that a firearm in my possession isn’t inadvertently used to hurt someone, etc.
With speech, I have a responsibility not to slander others. Press freedom has the responsibility to not libel someone.
But I’ll ask the question I implied before: who decides what is hate speech? Who decides whether or not Pamela Geller gets to speak or not? Who decides what the “responsibilities” are that go with free speech rights?
Jon
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There are other factors than the direct content of a speech or article, that warrant limiting someone from a public platform. We prevent neo nazis, white supremecists, radical Islamists and criminal motorcycle gangs from expressing freely in public. The ideology behind the words has a greater sociological effect than the actual words. That needs to be recognised. America flourished in a fertile garden of Christian principles, the main universal and recognisable one being the golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. That recognises that people can have vastly different opinions and beliefs and speak those with the fundamental goal of communion, peace, unity. If the ideologues desire ‘cleansing’ or at least division and war by their speech, that is no longer conducive to the basic principles that safeguard the right to free speech. The ADL demonstrate all the hallmarks of this type of character and we would be foolish to ‘befrenemy’ them in this case.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
So you think that neo nazis, white supremecists and radical Islamists should have the right to the public platform?
E
Ender
Guest
Yes. There are limits to what they can say - such as preaching sedition or inciting to violence - but, as I pointed out, the alternative is to give the government the power to determine what can or cannot be said. You may be correct in thinking that having this right is a bad solution, but the only alternative is a worse one.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It seems like you are suggesting that censorship created a fascist dictator but Hitler was actually nurtured in an environment of extreme opposition to censorship. During the Weimer Republic of 1918 to 1933, ‘Article 118 of the Weimar constitution forbade censorship with the text “No censorship will take place”. The only exception to this article was film.’
When the Nazis rose to power Goebbels moved to censor all public media and platforms and even attempted to censor private mail, phone calls and conversations. If Hitlers efforts to propagandise and popularise his agenda had been subjected to some basic censorship targeting hate speech… would he have had the support to rise to power?
P
Persecuted
Guest
Hi All,
I was discussing this very matter the other day with some friends of mine. LongingSoul, forgive me for saying so, but you simply toeing the line that people like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are members of ‘hate groups’ is downright wrong, and I would say even borderline immoral.
I would challenge you right now to produce a single statement from either Geller or Spencer that could reasonably considered hateful.
Anyway, here is what I wrote about this in another conversation:
Well my fine gentlemen, I respect your opinions and some good points have been raised. However, I beseech your patience as I further plead my case.
Friend 1, good point about the ‘goodness’ of the event.
Friend 2, also you are 100% correct that we should be charitable and they are indeed souls that need saving - no disagreement there.
Friend 3, you’ve made an excellent point so casually I think its significance may have been overlooked. That is, what about the unprovoked attacks from Muslims?
Allow me to unpack these points.
I think we need some clarification between our ideals and the reality we are faced with, the reality is bleak, to say the least. We are faced with the collapse of Western civilisation, which is the only civilisation that has been built on Judeo-Christian values, principles of reason, law, and order. Is it not necessary sometimes that for the greater good to be preserved we have to commit lesser ‘evils’? Islam stands ready to fill the vacuum of Western power and indeed we can already see it is doing so with relative ease in Europe - the motherland of our civilisation, and the home of Holy Mother Rome.
The questions of whether we should, or whether we should be allowed, are two different questions. I must, with all the might of my flabby biceps, argue that we should always be allowed to, regardless of the offence caused because that is how freedom is preserved.
Friend 3 has made an excellent point, the fact is that Muslims are attacking us (literally) often without and provocation at all and this goes right back to the beginning of their religion where the conquered many formerly Christian cities and killed or forcibly converted millions of our Christian brothers and sisters. You all heard about the beheading of a British soldier in the UK, I suppose it could be argued (wrongfully) that the Muslims killed him out of some sort of perceived self-defence. But I would guess that you may not have heard of Palmira Silva, an 82 year old lady from the UK who was beheaded in a garden by a recent convert to the religion of peace. That didn’t receive nearly as much publicity. I could list countless other examples of unprovoked attacks but just two more, a young Jew in France the same age as myself was kidnapped by Muslims. They tortured him to death and called his family on the phone and read verses of the Qur’an to them while he was screaming in pain before he died. A Jewish Rabbi in France was almost beaten to death in front of his 6 year old daughter, simply for being Jewish.
Friend 1, going back to your analogy of the hornets nest. Usually a hornets nest is poked with a stick by some dumb kid in order for it to be stirred up. These examples (among many, many others) do not seem to fit that analogy.
What we have with Islam in the west is more like a cancer. Some people have diagnosed the cancer but the patient (the West) seems intent on believing that the cancer doesn’t exist. So should the cancer be aggravated now to expose the symptoms before it’s too late to remove it? I believe it should.
I leave you with a warning from the exiled Archbishop of Mosul, Iraq:
“Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."
Please forgive my lack of brevity my dear fine gentlemen.
I was discussing this very matter the other day with some friends of mine. LongingSoul, forgive me for saying so, but you simply toeing the line that people like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are members of ‘hate groups’ is downright wrong, and I would say even borderline immoral.
I would challenge you right now to produce a single statement from either Geller or Spencer that could reasonably considered hateful.
Anyway, here is what I wrote about this in another conversation:
Well my fine gentlemen, I respect your opinions and some good points have been raised. However, I beseech your patience as I further plead my case.
Friend 1, good point about the ‘goodness’ of the event.
Friend 2, also you are 100% correct that we should be charitable and they are indeed souls that need saving - no disagreement there.
Friend 3, you’ve made an excellent point so casually I think its significance may have been overlooked. That is, what about the unprovoked attacks from Muslims?
Allow me to unpack these points.
I think we need some clarification between our ideals and the reality we are faced with, the reality is bleak, to say the least. We are faced with the collapse of Western civilisation, which is the only civilisation that has been built on Judeo-Christian values, principles of reason, law, and order. Is it not necessary sometimes that for the greater good to be preserved we have to commit lesser ‘evils’? Islam stands ready to fill the vacuum of Western power and indeed we can already see it is doing so with relative ease in Europe - the motherland of our civilisation, and the home of Holy Mother Rome.
The questions of whether we should, or whether we should be allowed, are two different questions. I must, with all the might of my flabby biceps, argue that we should always be allowed to, regardless of the offence caused because that is how freedom is preserved.
Friend 3 has made an excellent point, the fact is that Muslims are attacking us (literally) often without and provocation at all and this goes right back to the beginning of their religion where the conquered many formerly Christian cities and killed or forcibly converted millions of our Christian brothers and sisters. You all heard about the beheading of a British soldier in the UK, I suppose it could be argued (wrongfully) that the Muslims killed him out of some sort of perceived self-defence. But I would guess that you may not have heard of Palmira Silva, an 82 year old lady from the UK who was beheaded in a garden by a recent convert to the religion of peace. That didn’t receive nearly as much publicity. I could list countless other examples of unprovoked attacks but just two more, a young Jew in France the same age as myself was kidnapped by Muslims. They tortured him to death and called his family on the phone and read verses of the Qur’an to them while he was screaming in pain before he died. A Jewish Rabbi in France was almost beaten to death in front of his 6 year old daughter, simply for being Jewish.
Friend 1, going back to your analogy of the hornets nest. Usually a hornets nest is poked with a stick by some dumb kid in order for it to be stirred up. These examples (among many, many others) do not seem to fit that analogy.
What we have with Islam in the west is more like a cancer. Some people have diagnosed the cancer but the patient (the West) seems intent on believing that the cancer doesn’t exist. So should the cancer be aggravated now to expose the symptoms before it’s too late to remove it? I believe it should.
I leave you with a warning from the exiled Archbishop of Mosul, Iraq:
“Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. I lost my diocese. The physical setting of my apostolate has been occupied by Islamic radicals who want us converted or dead. Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."
Please forgive my lack of brevity my dear fine gentlemen.
We do? Since when? Radical Islamists are on the internet all the time. So are these other groups. So are communists. And they should be allowed to speak, so long as they are not calling for violence against individuals, groups, or a violent overthrow of our constitutional representative republic. Beyond violence, they should be allowed to say whatever they want, and to the extent that their stated views are offensive or obnoxious, their influence or acceptance in the general public is correspondingly diminished.
We need to be clear: Pamela Geller and her group are not the criminals. They are not at fault for what happened. The shooters are - 100%. All of the blame is on the shooters.
Jon
J
JoeT777
Guest
Hitler’s rise to power was supplemented with strong arm bully tactics, similar to the Muslim approach today. Any ideas contrary to Hitler were meet with violence. Similar to the way the two gun men acted in Texas. Their Imam didn’t like the Geller and Spencer cartoons so they attempted to kill them. This is the Imam’s right?
The purpose of such tactics is to silence and offer an example to anybody who might not agree with the Imam; the word is intimidation. It is quite apparent that the Imam will not like anything a Catholic Bishop might have to say or do, will this Imam put them to death as well, even if he doesn’t draw a cartoon? What about you, will he come for you as well for ‘being’ Catholic? What will happen when the Imam has control of the government because nobody will speak up against him? Given the trail of death left in the wake of the Imam, will you speak up against him?
I don’t understand this comment, what are you driving at? Are you saying that those who speak against Hitler are ‘hate speakers’? They deserved death?
I would not have supported Hitler nor would I have supported uncle Benito.
If nobody speaks up to show the error of those called ‘leader’, how are people to know they are indeed evil and wrong? How quick we are to speak-out and criticize our own Catholic Bishops, but we shouldn’t criticize the acts of a fascist dictate?
Am I to understand you support the right of the Imam to send his henchmen to Geller’s and Spencer’s door because they ‘spoke’-out?
JoeT
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m toeing the line of other western conservative governments like Britain and Australia where there is no specific legislation that enshrines freedom of expression in law. It is a right that is appreciated within limits for the sake of civil justice and public order etc. There is little inclination in these countries to defend it ‘on principle’ by tolerating extremism and all the colateral damage associated with extremism. Groups like the American Freedom Defense Initiative by their nature, are considered an extremist group whose ideologies incite people to prejudice. Language like the ‘Islamisation of America’ has a sociological impact in the direction of division based on the premise that radical, extreme Islam is one and the same is moderate Islam instead of the ideal which would be the union of moderate, reasonable human beings against extremism in any form.
Building bridges with moderates is the way to go but it seems that goal goes to the wayside sacrificed for the enshrined almost divine principle that is ‘freedom of speech’.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
That has never been a concrete correlation. Human beings are notoriously prone to being prejudice and judgemental and war-ish… especially young lads. Extremism and extremist speech feeds those conditions which are intrinsically not conducive to an environment of peace and freedom. Ironically even extreme peace and freedom ideologies aren’t conducive to peace and freedom.
No ones here suggesting that the shooters should not have been dealt with as they were. Nobody gets to be above the law. They are fully legally responsible for their actions. But that shouldn’t result in giving tacit license to extremists to publically mock a religious figure head of others faith.
I
Ignatius
Guest
Absolutely, we should not tolerate extremism. Any group that resorts to violence cannot be tolerated in a Civil society and anyone who thinks violent attacks on cartoonists are supporting the extremests themselves. Violent attacks are extreme acts, drawing cartoons is not. If the Islamic State extremists disagree with what someone says, they have the same free speech right to, in Civil way, state their side of the issue. They are free to engage in dialog, not violence.
When the Islamic State Jihadi’s choose to deliberately attack someone, Whatever happens is on those who perpetrate the violence, not on the speakers or cartoonists.
E
Ender
Guest
A government capable of defining the AFDI as an extremist group and prohibiting them from speaking can just as easily define the Catholic church the same way. Catholic teaching on homosexuality has already been characterized as hate speech in Canada. This outcome was inevitable. The same thing has happened in Sweden and it’s only going to get worse.
Ender
I do not know what your experience is in Australia, but here in the US, self-proclaimed Neo-nazis, fascists, communists, white supremacists, Islamo-fascists, etc., rarely to never win elected office. That is a concrete correlation!
People recognize that the most dangerous place for extremists is in government. Government is the greatest danger any citizen faces.
No one is giving extremists anything, tacit or otherwise. As I said, free speech is a right, not a privilege to be extend or rescinded by government. The Christ that you and I worship and proclaim has been regularly mocked since Good Friday, and perhaps earlier. It doesn’t effect His divinity, or our faith in Him. I’m willing to endure it in return for not losing my right to free speech to extremists in government who would take it.
Jon
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
You wrote, “If people don’t get that free speech is not an inalienable right but exists within the bounds of a social contract, society will inevitably dissolve into a group of warmongering savages”.
Seems as if you might be speaking about Australia but this story is about Texas which is in the USA and “free speech” is an inalienable right.
As far as “society will inevitably dissolve into a group of warmongering savages”, this might just be what happens.
However, it just might dissolve into a total religious police state if one looks at 'free speech" as being able to say anything as long as everyone else agrees that one can say it.
You also wrote, “There are many limits to free speech written into law. Civil society depends on those limits.”
By a “civil society” do you mean a “police state”, a theocracy, a dictatorship?
You can not mean a “free civil society” because a “free society” is not based on trying to “hurt no one’s feelings” but on acting civil even if one is offended.
Forcing one’s ideas down other people’s throats is NOT a civil society but is totalitarian.
Yep.
From the Declaration of Independence
There is no social contract that has the power to rescind or deny what is ours antecedent to government.
Jon
- Status