Freedom of Speech vs. Bullying: So, which is it?

originally posted by: thesmokingman
However, they have freedom of speech so thats ok, right? Oh, and while we are on the subject of "Freedom of Speech", I just want to remind you how just last year, the WORLD was ready to crucify Clippers owner Donald Sterling, for, in the privacy of his own home mind you, being illegally recorded mind you, discussing his dislike for having African Americans in photos with his wife. Where the hell was "Freedom of Speech" then?

Sterling had Freedom of Speech. At no time did the government interfere in what he said. Our right to Freedom of Speech protects us from the GOVERNMENT ONLY, not from normal consequences of acting like an asshat. His bosses fired him for what he said. It is well within their rights. The GOVERNMENT took no action whatsoever, so his Freedom of Speech was entirely intact.

About Freedom of speech, should we not be able to bully and make fun of who we want, and talk about our dislike for other people and other races, without being crucified for it?

Absolutely. We should be legally permitted to speak our minds without government interference. Who can control whether some nutjob becomes offended and goes on a killing spree? It's something we should consider before insulting someone. Not saying you shouldn't insult them. I'm just saying the government cannot control the backlash we may experience. Just like the government protects Sterling's right to say what he wants, but cannot control what his bosses do to him, as long as it's within the law.

But there's quite a difference between Speech and Bullying.

Bullying

Bullying is the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively dominate others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception, by the bully or by others, of an imbalance of social or physical power.

That last sentence is key. Imbalance of social or physical power is necessary for bullying to take place. In the case of drawing a cartoon of Mohammad or insulting a religion, one party has no power over the other. It's a matter of speaking our minds and expressing ourselves, not bullying.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well said. As I said earlier in this thread. This whole discussion is a red herring. The government isn't fining, arresting, jailing, or executing anyone for anything they are saying.

There is no freedom of speech violation. All it is is that a certain group of people are upset that another group of people holds an opinion that they personally disagree with. The first group of people publicly shames the other group, but that isn't violating freedom of speech. In fact that is an exercise in free speech. Then the second group, if they decide not to say those things anymore, has made their own personal decision to censor themselves. THEY are restricting their own speech willingly.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Well said. As I said earlier in this thread. This whole discussion is a red herring. The government isn't fining, arresting, jailing, or executing anyone for anything they are saying.

True the government isn't fining, arresting jailing or executing
anyone for what they are saying ....

BUT

Someone/ body feeling slighted at what they consider
a slur on their belief (even agnostics have the right to not believe)
have gone around murdering people for their freedom to
speak (or as in this case to draw)

a reply to: eletheia

So explain to me what that has to do with freedom of speech as outlined in our Constitution.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: EternalSolace

It ends up being a tug o war. Just because one isn't willing to concede. There will never be progress if it continues like that. At some point one needs to realize that if you concede, even when correct, you are the bigger person. That's all that matters in the end. I choose not to choose. It's gets philosophical

There becomes a point where backing down is no longer right or an option. This type of terrorism is the perfect example. Terrorists scream silence, people become silent out of fear. Terrorists state not to do this, people don't do it out of fear. The dual hostage situation proves that this is more than retaliation for a magazine printing. They hate freedom. They hate diversity. They hate you, and they hate me.

No more concessions. No more backing down to these cowards. They've taken lives... time and time again they've taken lives. Then we back down and concede so as not to offend anymore. No more!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: eletheia

So explain to me what that has to do with freedom of speech as outlined in our Constitution.

I know the majority of members on ATS are American .... but hey!! there

is life out side of the USA

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Well said. As I said earlier in this thread. This whole discussion is a red herring. The government isn't fining, arresting, jailing, or executing anyone for anything they are saying.

There is no freedom of speech violation. All it is is that a certain group of people are upset that another group of people holds an opinion that they personally disagree with. The first group of people publicly shames the other group, but that isn't violating freedom of speech. In fact that is an exercise in free speech. Then the second group, if they decide not to say those things anymore, has made their own personal decision to censor themselves. THEY are restricting their own speech willingly.

Yes!

Totally ridiculous. This entire thread makes me want to puke.

First group exercises free speech. Simple.

Second group is offended, and commits mass murder against the first group.

Who is the bully?

What type of idiotic reasoning would even cause somebody to raise the question?

a reply to: eletheia

Well is freedom of speech defined differently in your country? I don't see that you listed a location on your profile, so I cannot look that information up.

This wiki article pretty much says that it is defined the same pretty much everywhere in the world. Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property[clarification needed][citation needed] to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Political means government.

a reply to: Jamie1

Exactly, speech can only be silenced by the government. They are the only ones with the authority to do so. Anyone else tells you to shut up would be breaking the law if they tried to force you to shut up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jamie1

Exactly, speech can only be silenced by the government. They are the only ones with the authority to do so. Anyone else tells you to shut up would be breaking the law if they tried to force you to shut up.

Yes. So it is clear those who printed the cartoon were exercising freedom of speech.

Why is this even questioned?

Now the second half of the OP's question.

Who is the bully:

Somebody drawing cartoons, or guys with AK-47s committing mass murder against guys who draw cartoons?

a reply to: EternalSolace

In all my discussions here, I am the Devil's advocate. At home, well, another story. At least for a few hours, then back to playing Devil's advocate. Head's on a pike is what I say. Line the city streets with heads and have dinner among them. Then I listen to a debate against muslims and once again I choose the higher ground. Thing is, if there ever was a reason for cognitive dissonance, this dilemma is one of them. What do you do?

Now I'm reading about the crusades in search for an answer. Unfortunately, I begin to back peddle (once again) to a time of brute force. I am a bigot. Not racist, not atheist, nor do I condemn religions but this entire caliphate issue has made me a bigot which I strive to squash with level headed, compassionate, and empathetic reasoning.

I would suggest taking the higher ground and NOT exacerbate Muslims with frivolous cartoons, but to take a stronger stance reminiscent of a dictatorship. The Islam war will not be won with democracy, editorials, cartoons, Q'uran burning or freedom of speech. A complete waste of time; only enticing more and more to join the cause. No, I suggest something much much more. A staunch hard-line approach which will undoubtedly cause even the hardest criminal to take notice. And this approach not done with bigotry nor racism, but done because it's the only thing left to do.

The power is not "cowering" by refusing to print cartoons. I would stop the presses. I would stop the ridicule. I would acknowledge their religion. However, what came next would not be pretty.

originally posted by: Jamie1
Who is the bully:

Somebody drawing cartoons, or guys with AK-47s committing mass murder against guys who draw cartoons?

Neither. The people committing mass murder are criminals guilty of murder, not bullies.

a reply to: thesmokingman

This is where PC has got us as a species !

Your cartoon has upset me so much Im going to kill you

Your words have made me feel so bad, that im going to take you to court, and get you locked up for a very long time.

OMFG when did the world get so wet behind the ears.

the only way words or a cartoon for that matter is going to actually hurt anyone, is if I roll up a newspaper and beat the $#it out of someone with it, get a grip people, please.