It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Agreed, but where does offense end and HARM begin? Can I slap you, just a little, or maybe poke my finger in your chest? It won't really hurt you physically.
But what if I go to a mosque in that shirt, glaring menacingly at the worshipers and cracking my knuckles?
What if I'm a racist who walks around town in a shirt like that shouting at the top of my lungs that Muslims are murderous pigs and should be purged from our society immediately?
When the image adds to a threatening context, or if it invites confrontation without some overriding ideological message, it ceases to be speech and is not protected.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Human advances from time to time challenge our codes of behavior to expand to meet new circumstances. Old legal codes, such as Hamurabi's, had to be expanded upon as our advancements caused the world to shrink, particularly as greater ownership and the expansion of life beyond matters of mere survival began to dictate the move to democracy, and this was impossible to accomplish to perfection in a single attempt- it took much review and many failures to even come this far. The world is shrinking at an exponential rate, and our laws much change with it. Eventually, if advancement doesn't top out, it will probably dictate a complete paradigm shift in regards to government and laws.
This cartoon could be the tip of a substantial iceberg.
Originally posted by loam
We have just as much of a social responsibility to restrain our behavior as we do to tolerate the behavior of others.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You may not touch me.
You can say all you want, but once you put your hand on my person, you are invading my person. you may not poke me, however lightly.
It depends. With your shouting, you might be disturbing the peace(snip) Otherwise, you're just a very loud, opinionated jerk. And that's not against the law.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
When the image adds to a threatening context, or if it invites confrontation without some overriding ideological message, it ceases to be speech and is not protected.
I disagree. Unless you're directly threatening someone "I'm going to kill..." or you're inciting, "Come on! Who's with me? Let's go kill... " your speech is protected.
from loam
Outstanding statement! But I also think it overlooks how the role of social constraints operate. From the smallest family unit to the largest culture, there is a social agreement that requires the responsibility of restraint. Otherwise, these institutions do not work.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But then, I speak for us all when I say we are responsible for our own feelings, so...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And the truth is, I don't really expect everyone to take the responsibility for their feelings. I know how hard it is to make that decision. I do own all my own feelings, as I have said, but it's unrealistic and imposing for me to expect that of everyone else. It's a personal choice for me and it works great, but I know it's not for everyone.
Originally posted by loam
Have we squeezed this topic for all it's worth yet?
Originally posted by loam
Should this guy be believed?
Originally posted by junglejake
You want to leave that decision to the government?
Originally posted by loam
I think I've made my position quite clear about government's role in this matter.
Originally posted by junglejake
I Recognize that, but you are advocating personal responsibility when it comes to free speech. As BH has told you, many do practice personal restraint or control in things they express. Yet, if everyone were to have personal responsibility, there would be no need for the police. Because there are some that do not, we need officers of the law to force personal responsibility on people.
Originally posted by junglejake
So if one person makes a "mistake" (I don't think it was in this case) right now, apparently it causes riots through the world. Where do you stand on that?
Originally posted by junglejake
Should the person whom you don't believe was personally responsible when they drew those cartoons (again, I do think they were) have some kind of consequences put on them,
Originally posted by junglejake
or should those rioting, burning, looting and killing have the consequences?
Originally posted by junglejake
Right now, you're talking about the cartoon writers as though they're at fault for the actions of these rioters.
Originally posted by junglejake
I guess the question is, if you don't want government control on free speech, but you do want personal responsibility by your definition of personal responsibility, how does a situation like this one today get handled?
Originally posted by junglejake
Joe Blow draws a cartoon of the "prophet", and offends folks. Should those folks then have the right to kill him? To kill others of his nationality?
Originally posted by junglejake
Should he not be allowed to draw that?
Originally posted by junglejake
What's the solution?
Originally posted by loam
The message this t-shirt delivers is that the wearer regards all Muslims as terrorists.
Is that not an unjust provocation against the millions of Muslims who are not terrorists or rioters?
Why is it a problem to express utter distaste for the image on the t-shirts that are the subject of this thread?
More of us need to speak out against this type of nonsense...ON BOTH SIDES.
More Muslim leaders need to speak out against the rioting...(maybe they are...I can't tell by the coverage we get in the MSM...the internet is too vast to get a real sense...)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's the message it delivers to you. Again, the observers' interpretation of the object may vary. The message it delivers to me (and perhaps the originator's message and the reason I would wear the shirt, if I did) is that terrorists have hijacked Islam. They USE Mohammad to deliver their bombs!
Originally posted by loam
... but that is just simply ridiculous. It's not like I personally hold some obscure interpretation of the image....
Like the plain meaning of words, there is also a "plain" meaning of images.
If I were to walk into a Jewish neighborhood with the following symbol, would it be a surprise that I might find overwhelming opposition there?
While I can understand your support for my right to do that, would you also support my judgment in doing so?
Would you support the message?
But wait! Swastikas mean this:
Do your answers change?
Do you think the Allah Akbar guys represent the majority?
Again, is it your view that a majority of Muslims rioted as opposed to simply demonstrated?
Do the actions of the few negate the peaceful "offense" of the many?
What I guess I am trying to express is the surprise I feel that so many are willing to affirm a free speech "right" that is NOT in peril, at the expense of the vast majority of those who are communicating they view the image as a hostile attack on them personally.
Prejudice protected or disguised as free speech is still prejudice.
Incidentally, the very Danish newspaper that published the Mohammad pictures had previously rejected a cartoon with Jesus as the subject for fear it might offend its readership.
Double standard don't you think?
Do I agree with everything this Imam says in his interview? No. But I can understand his point of view better.
Like it or not, we share this planet with a whole lot of folks who are very different than us.
Then you believe Islam is a religion of violence?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Originally posted by loam
Then you believe Islam is a religion of violence?
What? NO!!! Where do you get this???
I don't think there's anything wrong with the cartoon or the picture because they are an expression. Do I agree with the message they send? No, but I would die fighting for the right to say something even though I disagree with it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I'm not against this shirt.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's sounding to me like you're saying that if I don't agree with someone's message, I should condemn their right to express it. Is that true?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Perhaps you think our right to Free Speech is not in peril, but I do. I see indications that we are no longer as free to express ourselves as we once were.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, but I would die fighting for the right to say something even though I disagree with it.
Originally posted by loam
That wasn't clear to me when you made this statement:
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I'm not against this shirt.
Aren't you complaining about an entirely different problem...the one of "social" regulation?
Moreover, are you saying this is the reason you do not speak out against prejudicial statements? ...which I know isn't true, because I have seen you do so quite effectively on other similar topics... What made the difference for you on this one?
I'd also like to point out that your position on free speech is not as absolute as you suggest... You have already accepted that in a social context free speech limitations are appropriate in your own home or place of employment. Why?
As would I..... but this isn't about the "right" to free speech... it's about attacking people without provocation and then complaining about their anger because you have a free speech right to insult them.
What practical solution do you offer to the present circumstances we find ourselves in? I'm afraid simply wishing for everyone to tolerate without exception prejudicial speech ain't gonna help a whole lot.
Originally posted by loam
EDIT: Btw, I still luv ya! Just heard your PODcast...Now I have to do this in a third place???