T-shirt Vendor Profits from Mohammed Cartoon Conflict

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

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.


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.




But what if I go to a mosque in that shirt, glaring menacingly at the worshipers and cracking my knuckles?


I won't speak to the mosque question, because I don't know if there are special ''rules' for entering a mosque, but if you were entering a public Muslim event on public property in the USA, until you act you are guilty of nothing.



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?


It depends. With your shouting, you might be disturbing the peace, but that would be the case if you were shouting" Jesus Loves You" or "Mary Had a Little Lamb". Otherwise, you're just a very loud, opinionated jerk. And that's not against the law.



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.




posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

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.


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.

The world is indeed becoming a smaller place. How will we manage our diversity? When you knowingly express a sentiment that is designed to offend another, is it unreasonable to expect opposition in return? I think we all agree that government should have little, if any, role in this matter, but where does that leave us?

This whole cartoon issue for me demonstrates how we are growing our own problem. Someone took the preeminent religious symbol of a third of the world's population and equated it with terrorism. It is not unreasonable for people to express their opposition to that, is it? Indeed, we are all arguing that you have that right. No?

If we are all going to get along, we should be standing beside them. I do not believe all Muslims are terrorist and seek to change the way I live. I can attack terrorism without making a casualty the beliefs of the innocent.

We have just as much of a social responsibility to restrain our behavior as we do to tolerate the behavior of others.

[edit on 11-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:08 PM
link   

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.


Stop saying that! I'm about to get offended, here!


My problem with your statement is that you are speaking for us all (We). I would have no problem if you decided that your life works best if you take the same amount of responsibility to restrain your behavior as you do to tolerate the behavior of others.

But then, I speak for us all when I say we are responsible for our own feelings, so...


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.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You may not touch me.


It never would have worked out between us anyway. I'm just not any good at relationships, and I can't get you drunk online. lol

OK, i'll be serious now.


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.


Interesting, but now we're getting into non-physical harm under the title of "invading my person". Can't I do that with threatening/intimidating speech? I know that I would certainly consider my person to be invaded if somebody was conveying a message which seemed to be devoid of any idea other than the implication that perhaps I should be harmed.

So like I said, context is key. The context has to expose some kind of message of greater merit than poking a finger in someone's chest.



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.


Actually, California Penal Code 415, section 3 states

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.


The right to speech is limited where it's purpose is to bring violence. The right to free speech, as I keep saying, was never intended to protect senseless aggitation, the law has been written to this effect, and the SCOTUS has upheld it.




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.


I hate to disagree because I'm generally not so hot on the idea of government authority, but in this case the law and the SCOTUS are with me, and I am with them, because I do not believe that speech which deserves the name by virtue of conveying ideas, and exercised in a venue which supports the conveyance of ideas in an orderly manner, can overlap to any great degree with breach of peace or "fighting words".

Consider the difference between me speaking vehemently against the celebration of Martin Luther King Day at a lecture series as opposed to doing the same thing on a street corner during a celebration of that day. One is stupid, but being done to convey ideas in a forum where violence is unlikely. One is being done to gain attention by creating a disturbance, and violence is very likely.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

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.

And this statement is great also, if you think of it in terms of having the same social constraints on both sides of the argument ( or T-shirt, if you will). If both parties' culture do not have the same freedom of expression, then we'll never have understanding. You can't practice freedom of speech in a nation/culture that doesn't embrace it. Even within a society, you will have individuals with differing levels of acceptance or understanding when it comes to liberties.



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But then, I speak for us all when I say we are responsible for our own feelings, so...


I'm glad you see this.



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.


But you also exercise restraint. I have heard you PODcast that you never intentionally offend someone for the sole purpose of offending them. I think I have seen you post as much as well. Why do you hold that value less important than the one that requires tolerance?

I too never hold myself accountable for the unintentional feelings I might invoke in another. But if I am to learn that someone is indeed offended by my statements, I at a minimum take the time to explain why it was NOT my intention to offend. Thereafter, if you insist on being nonetheless offended, it becomes your problem. Failing to believe me is like calling me a liar. I don't waste my time on such arguments.


Have we squeezed this topic for all it's worth yet?


[edit on 11-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

Have we squeezed this topic for all it's worth yet?




Yes! Yes! Oh, God! Yes!



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 11 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I have no knowledge, nor do I see any indication in his article, which would indicate that Mr. Noor is personally lacking in civility, tollerance, or respect for his fellow men, particularly as relates to religious figures accepted by other "people of the book".

Even the greatest virtue on his part however does not mitigate the unfortunate facts of how some Muslims see their religion, or how they have reacted to this unfortunate clash.

The Prophet Muhammad was a raider and warrior, to put it as gently and objectively as I can; violence was a part of his life, a part of the founding of Islam, and in some interpretations at least, a part of his message.

Muslim people in certain parts of the world are showing a considerable propensity for violence, at least ostensibly because of their religious beliefs, although one must concede that there are decidedly political aspects interwoven with Radical Islam. The stronghold of Islam- the middle east- is not really experienced with the abundance of liberty the West has, and they're not really experienced with the West either.

This stuff wasn't all that easy on us either if you'll recall. Maybe not as bad as it's been for them, because it wasn't dropped on us all at once, but it's a big change and it's a shock when you're used to living in a society where only one viewpoint is expressed, and it happens to be the viewpoint which you are statistically very likely to embrace as your own.

They've gotta come around- it's not an excuse, but it's the reason. They've got to get acclimated to the offensive material that sometimes comes out of the competitive politics of a democracy. Sometimes the material is wrong and shouldn't be put out, but even in those cases, you've gotta take it with a grain of salt- you can't start a riot everytime something stupid is done in the name of politics- we'd never have a quiet day again!

I googled Noor's name and didn't find anything incriminating, but it was a brief search.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Should this guy be believed?


What is "hate" speech? For a while, speaking well of socialism constituted hate speech. People were jailed for that hate speech, they lost their jobs for that hate speech, and they would even lose their families for that hate speech. All curtosey of the government.

So who decides what "hate" speech is? You want to leave that decision to the government? Small interest groups? Me? Let me tell you, it will be abused.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Vagabond:

I can't say that I disagree with a single thing you said. Moreover, I would love to see more Muslims denouncing the violence. But people who would buy these t-shirts are no less radical than the Muslims who spew hatred towards the West.


Originally posted by junglejake
You want to leave that decision to the government?


I think I've made my position quite clear about government's role in this matter.

(My position is also more fully explained here. )

But I do wonder whether we in the west have painted all Muslims the same.

Is that even in our interest?

Do we grow our problem if we broaden our opposition to the terrorists to include ALL Muslims? Is there any justification for that?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I think I've made my position quite clear about government's role in this matter.


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.

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? 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, or should those rioting, burning, looting and killing have the consequences? Right now, you're talking about the cartoon writers as though they're at fault for the actions of these rioters. Your focus has been on the individual that those breaking the law are blaming. Occasionally, we'll get a comment that they were wrong, but the primary focus is on the cartoon.

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? 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? Should he not be allowed to draw that? What's the solution?



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:07 AM
link   
What's the solution? Give them one generation of exposure to western cultures, and they'll get over it.

We've got everybody from Howard Stern to Andres Serrano to Paris Hilton, if you want to be offended. Cable TV and DVD's will bring whatever images you want into your living room or bedroom. (C)rap music will titillate you with explicit lyrics while you jog.

It's not that we're especially morally superior or have a deeper understanding of liberty. It's just that we're pretty jaded. By the time a person is sixteen, he/she's seen it all, if he/she wants to. Kids don't even consider oral sex as "sex' anymore.

Edit: typo

[edit on 12-2-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

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.


Ok. But I would not support government enforcement of the personal responsibility I mentioned... I'm not sure I understood your point.

Mine, from the very beginning of this thread, has been that I thought it a lack of restraint for someone to sell these t-shirts, and for people to buy them, knowing they represented a provocation.

Why would anyone go out of their way to use this particular symbol to express their opposition to terrorists or the rioters?



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 do we have to make them the enemy, when we already have our hands full with actual terrorists and menaces like this one:




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?


I oppose rioting. However, are you saying that the vast majority of Muslims have rioted? Or have the vast majority just demonstrated? (I assume we both agree that is OK.) Which picture do you think the MSM presents to both sides?


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,


No. Other than I wouldn't invite him over for a beer.



Originally posted by junglejake
or should those rioting, burning, looting and killing have the consequences?


They should be held fully accountable. Nothing justifies their crimes...even if I understand that some of them were suckered by the malicious agenda of a few.


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.


No, not the rioters....the demonstrators who have not rioted. Someone (quite a few people, actually) thought it was a good idea to take the preeminent religious symbol of one third of the planet's populous and equate that with terrorism. Is it true? What justification is there for attacking an entire class of people who have nothing to do with the radicals... extremists... or terrorists?

This makes no sense. WE GROW OUR PROBLEM BY DOING THIS. Disrespect people long enough, and they start to disrespect you back!

Would we socially tolerate in this country a cartoon image of Martin Luther King raping a white women and strangling a baby?

Why is it a problem to express utter distaste for the image on the t-shirts that are the subject of this thread?


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?


More of us need to speak out against this type of nonsense...ON BOTH SIDES. Our silence leaves the impression that there is more support for the extremists than there actually is. The irony is that some Western governments, including the United States, have already come out in condemning the cartoons. 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 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?


Of course not.


Originally posted by junglejake
Should he not be allowed to draw that?


Allowed? Yes. But should he?


Originally posted by junglejake
What's the solution?


See answer above.



[edit on 12-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Ack! *BH shakes her fist in the air Jon Stewart-style* "Damn you Loam for dragging me back into this"!*



Originally posted by loam


The message this t-shirt delivers is that the wearer regards all Muslims as terrorists.


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!



Is that not an unjust provocation against the millions of Muslims who are not terrorists or rioters?


It occurs to me this morning while drinking coffee and my mind is fresh...

There are all kinds of Muslims, those who are peaceful and would never harm another person because Islam is a religion of peace, and those who would drive an airplane into a building shouting "Allah Akbar"! and all in between, agreed?

Now, someone makes this cartoon. Muslims riot and burn buildings...

Are these the same Muslims who would never hurt anyone or are these the violent extremists just waiting for an excuse to take out their aggressions on the Westerners? If it's the former, then they're not very peaceful, are they? If they're the latter, then if not the cartoon or the shirt, something else (like a Valentine Card) is going to 'drive' them to violence.



Why is it a problem to express utter distaste for the image on the t-shirts that are the subject of this thread?


It isn't a problem! Go ahead and express your utter distaste. Where has someone tried to stop you from doing that?



More of us need to speak out against this type of nonsense...ON BOTH SIDES.


You KNOW I speak out against what I consider nonsense. You know I have no problem speaking out against something. But I'm not against this shirt. Should I speak out against something that I'm not opposed to?



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...)


Some are. I heard on NPR yesterday that there's a world wide-organization of Muslim leaders speaking out against the rioting. I don't know any more than that.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   



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!


BH, no offense intended (



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
... but that is just simply ridiculous. It's not like I personally hold some obscure interpretation of the image....


Perhaps I have an obscure interpretation of the image, then, but that's really what it meant to me. Your interpretation (All Muslims are terrorists) didn't occur to me until I read it. I'd be interested to know what Muslims think. And I'd be interested to hear the Denmark cartoonist's message. We both may be surprised.



Like the plain meaning of words, there is also a "plain" meaning of images.


Sorry, I disagree. Way disagree. Ten people can look at something and have 10 different interpretations. It's all about what you carry with you to interpret your world around you. It all depends on one's context.



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?


No.



While I can understand your support for my right to do that, would you also support my judgment in doing so?


Your judgment is none of my business. And yes, I would support you doing it if that's what you wanted to do.



Would you support the message?


I don't know what your message is.



But wait! Swastikas mean this:


I knew about that.



Do your answers change?


No.




Do you think the Allah Akbar guys represent the majority?


No.



Again, is it your view that a majority of Muslims rioted as opposed to simply demonstrated?


Again. No.



Do the actions of the few negate the peaceful "offense" of the many?


No. Absolutely not. I'm not saying it does. I do not in any way support the message that all Muslims are terrorists, you know that, right? And I completely support anyone who wishes to peacefully protest the cartoon.

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?



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.


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. And if we restrain our free speech at the threat of violence, we don't deserve it, in my opinion.



Prejudice protected or disguised as free speech is still prejudice.


True. Prejudice exists.



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.


They are free to decide that. If it had been the other way around, I would say the same thing. It's their paper, their judgment, their choice.



Double standard don't you think?


Yes.



Do I agree with everything this Imam says in his interview? No. But I can understand his point of view better.


I understand that people are taking this personally. I understand their point of view, as well as a non-Muslim can, I think. I think it's sad. I also think that the attempt to get the world to restrain their expression because of a religious idea would lead down a path that I do not want to go.

What about the other protests going on? What about the rap songs in Thailand being pulled from the shelves because somebody was offended?

What about the Valentines Cards being burned because someone was offended?

How far does this go? If we restrain our speech to keep peace, what will the next demand be?

I'm not going to buy the t-shirt. I never would. I do not support the (apparent) message, and I do not wish to add to hurt feelings, but neither do I think it's a good idea to send a message that we will capitulate under demands, violent or otherwise, based on religious dogma. I don't think it's a good idea to send a message that we are willing to base our expressions of ourselves on their (or any other) religion or other way of life.



Like it or not, we share this planet with a whole lot of folks who are very different than us.


I like it! I love diversity! I love foreign cultures and find them very interesting! You're talking to me like I agree with the cartoon and the t-shirt maker! I don't! I would never do such a thing, nor do I agree with the message you (and apparently everybody else in the world except me) have attached to it.

But I defend his right to do it.



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.



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   

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.


That wasn't clear to me when you made this statement:


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But I'm not against this shirt.


...particularly in the context of our discussion in this thread where you and I already agreed that this was not about governmental interference with free speech. Our positions are the same on that issue.


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?


Well, no. Not exactly. Your free to champion, or not, any position you like.

But it is difficult to understand why people are more motivated to discuss the legal protection of free speech, when that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. No governmental authority in Denmark, or here in the United States, has done anything to impede free speech rights with respect to this cartoon.

You say:


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.


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? Why did speaking out about the right of free speech trump your concern for the prejudicial sentiment conveyed in the example of the cartoons?

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?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, but I would die fighting for the right to say something even though I disagree with it.


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.

In any event, returning to the topic of this thread...

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.


EDIT: Btw, I still luv ya!
Just heard your PODcast...Now I have to do this in a third place???


[edit on 12-2-2006 by loam]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

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.


Come, on, Loam, that was before I knew what the t-shirt meant to you (and apparently everyone else). I even agreed with the message (my interpretation) that terrorists (bombers) are using Islam (Mohammad) to justify their actions.

I thought (as has been reported by MANY sources) that Muslims were upset because someone made an image of Mohammad. I know that was reported many places.



Aren't you complaining about an entirely different problem...the one of "social" regulation?


The only thing I'm complaining about in this whole issue is the people destroying public property.



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?


If you look, you'll find that I have indeed spoken out against the idea that "All Muslims are terrorists" many times here on ATS. Just ask Skippy, et al. Because those people are here, making those statements and I can argue it with them. I have never condemned them for offering their opinion, though, no matter how much I disagree with it. I support their right to have and express their opinion, even though I disagree with it. I DON'T CONDEMN THEM.

Neither the cartoonist nor the t-shirt maker are here. I cannot argue with a picture. If they were here speaking a message of hatred toward Islam, I would be the first in line to argue with them. What do you want me to do?

Somehow you're missing my very basic positions:
I support people to express themselves, even if I don't agree with their message.
I support people to disagree, be angry, be offended and protest in response.
I do not support physical response, such as burning buildings.

What about this is getting hung up here?



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?


Because that is private property. Just like here on ATS. They are not obligated to offer Free Speech. I can speak freely, but I may be forced to leave. I won't be arrested. I have the right to Free Speech, ATS just has the right to give me the boot for any reason. Same as homes and jobs.



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.


I'm not complaining about their anger! I'm complaining about them burning buildings. I understand their anger. Let them be angry (haven't I said this before? Are you not hearing me?) And a cartoon, while some may find it offensive, is not a physical attack and does not justify a physical response.

You say "attacking people". With a picture? That's one thing we differ on. To me, a word, a picture is incapable of 'attacking' someone and does not constitute an attack.



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.


I think those who are breaking laws and burning buildings should be arrested and punished. You cannot just go destroying property because you get pissed off.

Otherwise, I think, as with most problems of this sort, education is the key. I think the number of people who would make these cartoons or wear the t-shirt are miniscule compared to the number of 'westerners' as a whole. We're not out to offend people just because...

I also think Muslims (and whomever else is upset over this kind of thing) should be taught to honor and practice their religion - but they must be taught that it's unrealistic to expect the entire world to respect and honor their religion as they do. It would be nice, but it's unrealistic. It's not going to happen. The best thing they could do is to learn that other people's opinion of their religion doesn't matter. And to let it go.

They cannot control people.

People disagree in this world. People are going to disagree. Even if we didn't try to offend, people are going to be offended. Peaceful protest is a very good way to express disagreement and petition for change.

Edit:


Originally posted by loam
EDIT: Btw, I still luv ya!
Just heard your PODcast...Now I have to do this in a third place???



I love you, too and no, you don't have to PODcast. Only if I misrepresented you and you want to clear it up. Or, who knows... Maybe you can change my mind.


[edit on 12-2-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 12 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
You can buy T-shirts in london apparently that say F--k Christ.

People say would we ware them in their country. You try wearing a cross and you could be prosecuted in these countries. The T-shirt is nothing and the truth is is you can not even say I believe in Budda or Christ in these countries let alone have women uncovered. Some Christians do live in the middle east only to be cast out as infidels and second rate citizens.

I would not wear this T-shirt I would wear a Cross.

Guess what now? Europeans want to make it policy for air hostesses not to wear crosses when flying to the Middle East in case it upsets them. If we were in a Christain Europe we would make it law to have rights to spread the word of Jesus. But as they use their religion as a social changing weapon we can't spead what we think is good either. We lack the the formular to fight this is why they can not understand our ways.

[edit on 12-2-2006 by The time lord]

[edit on 12-2-2006 by The time lord]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join