News Anger at the Filmmaker and Blasphemy in the Middle East

[Galteeth]

What evidence do you have that rational criticism - as opposed to inflammatory rhetoric - would provoke a response? Is there a case you can actually cite?



Why would you jump to that strawman extreme? It is like saying the existence of speeding laws would make people fearful of driving at all.

If there are laws, then that is going to be the basis of any interpretation of some action.



You seem to be stating that you should be able to have the rights to act, but bear no responsibilty for the effects of your actions.

It is easy to make the case that free speech is fundamental to a healthy society. But if a healthy society is the ultimate goal (as opposed to "religiously" defending some moral philosophical ideal here) then mechanisms to minimise the dumb bigotry that can result from a generalised right to free speech seem a good thing.

For one, the abundance of silly driving laws does make me somewhat afraid to drive.

You absolutely have the right to act, and bear responsibility for the consequences of those actions, but if part of that responsibility is enduring violence for speaking, then you do not in fact have the right to speak. "The right to" implies freedom from violent retribution. By the standard you are proposing, every country has freedom of speech- including the ones where you can be jailed or killed for criticizing the government.

Mechanisms to minimize dumb bigotry? Like say, the ability to criticize religions?

 

[Galteeth]

My understanding was that inciting violence has to be explicit to be illegal: you actually have to say the words "go kill xxxxxxc" or some variation of it.

And for this case, of course, the shoe is on the wrong foot: the video could only be inciting anti- muslim violence, not anti-christian violence. The organizers of the protests, on the other hand...

If you were to define inciting violence as any thing that people who commit violence blame for their actions, you create a perverse situation where violent people can create a crime by choosing to blame someone else for their actions. I.e., I didn't like what you said on physics forums, therefore I killed someone, therefore what you said was a crime!

 

[Galteeth]

You aren't allowed to harm others. What constitute harm varies depending upon peoples.
To the west, no harm is done by insulting speeches; until physical harm is done, there is no harm. But to the people of middle east, you can very well harm them through speeches or movies (so it seems). They will protest against the harm. Yes of course, you think, they shouldn't be harmed by such things, but because of how they were raised, it certainly does harm them.
So, there can't be global rules.
Knowing that they can be harmed through speeches and still making such speech to them looks like a crime to me.
Why not make a rule that you can make whatever movie in the US (or other liberal countries); but make sure that it doesn't reach to the peoples of middle east(or any other people who will be offended by it.)

Utterly impossible in today's world. Furthermore, why should the burden be on you to prevent things from falling into the hands of people who might be offended by them?

 

[Galteeth]

Where did I express a preference as opposed to articulating a rational basis for forming a preference?



I live in a country with both blasphemy laws (on the books, no longer invoked) and hate speech laws (accepted without controversy). Yet democracy seems to survive - at least the Economist Intelligence Unit rates our effective freedoms 14 places higher than the US. So I don't see any big deal here.

Again, my basic position would be that freedoms must always be matched by constraints, rights by responsibilities. That is the basis for healthy society. And so if you accept this is a globalising world, then adjustments are only to be expected.

I like the arguments outlined by this UCLA law professor...



So what about your position on the point I actually made.

Should players in a global space be willing to sign up to global rules as a general principle? And if not, on what rational grounds?

I vehemently disagree with this position. So much in fact, that I feel personally offended. Therefore, you should not be allowed to make this argument where I can read it.

(Demonstrating that your argument is irrational because it is self-annihilating.)

 

[I_am_learning]

Furthermore, why should the burden be on you to prevent things from falling into the hands of people who might be offended by them?

The one who is making the 'possibly' offending speech should make sure it doesn't reach those who are offended.
Just like I can't make a post here that will insult/offend you, because I know you are likely to read this post, but I can very well talk bad about you with my friend sitting next to me right now, because I know you can't hear that and hence there is no chance you will be offended.
If I fail to do that, and post such things anyway, I will be penalized by mentors/moderators; Similarly someone failing to do that in broader context should be penalized by the government.

This is my understanding right now, but I am open to changes.

 

[SixNein]

These examples you give all took place within Islamic countries and your OP I thought related to the question of restrictions on free speech outside these countries. When you asked should "we" have blasphemy laws, I took that to mean the US, or at least the West.

If we are to prevent the types of speech that induce violence in the middle east by passing blasphemy laws in the west, my examples illustrate the required strictness of these laws. It also illustrates that they request an exemption from criticism or parody of their religion.

 

[apeiron]

I vehemently disagree with this position. So much in fact, that I feel personally offended. Therefore, you should not be allowed to make this argument where I can read it.

(Demonstrating that your argument is irrational because it is self-annihilating.)

I'm not sure you understand the argument. If just one Galteeth is offended, then tough luck. But if a world of Galteeths agrees on the social value of such a constraint, then that would be a valid basis for enforcing it.

 

[apeiron]

If we are to prevent the types of speech that induce violence in the middle east by passing blasphemy laws in the west, my examples illustrate the required strictness of these laws. It also illustrates that they request an exemption from criticism or parody of their religion.

Well, I said from the start that hate speech laws seem a good thing in a civil society, but blasphemy laws lack a rational basis as they appeal to moral absolutism.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not sure you understand the argument. If just one Galteeth is offended, then tough luck. But if a world of Galteeths agrees on the social value of such a constraint, then that would be a valid basis for enforcing it.

Isn't the real measurement here several Galteeths who are also willing to blow things up/kill people?

EDIT: Let's envision a hypothetical scenario. A large number of people on this planet find evolution as an explanation for how humans came to be inherently offensive. Under your reasoning, how could discussing evolution be permitted?

 

[apeiron]

Isn't the real measurement here several Galteeths who are also willing to blow things up/kill people?

Not in my view.

EDIT: Let's envision a hypothetical scenario. A large number of people on this planet find evolution as an explanation for how humans came to be inherently offensive. Under your reasoning, how could discussing evolution be permitted?

Again strawman. Nothing to do with any discussion of restrictions on hate speech. And you also ignore the difference between toning down and complete prohibition.

 

[Zarqon]

I think an important part has been forgotten in all of the threads about this issue, namely that of Honor culture.

In most muslim countries they don't have the same trust in authorities/police to clear up offenses made against them as we in the west do. If someone insults your family, you simply have to retaliate or fall behind in social status. This is the culture they've grown up with, so when someone insults their faith, they respond with what they know work in their society (remember, all western countries were like this hundreds of years ago too).

How can we change this? It is not an easy question, and requires slow changes over the course of several generations. This is why I think it's very hard to discuss something like transferring western laws to the muslim countries, their basic infrastructure and upbringing is just too different to accept western laws at this point in time.

 

[Jack21222]

I am 100% against blasphemy laws, and I am also 100% against what this troll filmmaker did. These are not contradictory opinions. Just because you are opposed to something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

 

[Galteeth]

Not in my view.



Again strawman. Nothing to do with any discussion of restrictions on hate speech. And you also ignore the difference between toning down and complete prohibition.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure you understand the argument. If just one Galteeth is offended, then tough luck. But if a world of Galteeths agrees on the social value of such a constraint, then that would be a valid basis for enforcing it.

How many Galteeth's are required to be offended before the offending speech can be deemed illegal?

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't the real measurement here several Galteeths who are also willing to blow things up/kill people?

That's the way I see it, yes: some people (not even in the US!) are willing to back-up their offended-ness with violence and as a result, our government criticizes freedom of speech here.

 

[russ_watters]

In most muslim countries they don't have the same trust in authorities/police to clear up offenses made against them as we in the west do.

What an odd thing to say: in the West, the "authorities" don't "clear up offenses". That's kinda the main point of freedom of speech!

 

[apeiron]

What an odd thing to say: in the West, the "authorities" don't "clear up offenses". That's kinda the main point of freedom of speech!

How does this statement about "the West" apply to the many countries which do believe in hate laws?

 

[Zarqon]

What an odd thing to say: in the West, the "authorities" don't "clear up offenses". That's kinda the main point of freedom of speech!

Sorry, I didn't write it clearly enough. I meant that we in the west put the trust to authorities to clear up things that really should be illegal, whereas in honor cultures, you are forced to deal with many things yourself, and then it's hard to draw the line between what should really be illegal and what counts as free speech. I think it's pretty difficult for a generation of people who have all been brought up with the idea that you simply have to retaliate, or you lose social status and become a failure, to suddenly change their views and let insults slip.

Just because we believe that our ideas of free speech is a better way to go (and I do too), it doesn't mean that they are currently in the position to be able to actually adopt those ideas. I think the best course of action is more to target future generations of muslims, and just try to show them that we are the better part, that our values lead to better societies. Once the young generation believes that, we can just sit back let them handle it themselves.

 

[daveb]

This is all hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt.

Yesterday on NPR there was an interview with one of the doctors associated with the emergency trauma center they are trying to institute over there. He was talking about how, after the ambassador had been killed, many people were apologizing for what had happened. Apparently, in many cultures, an affront committed by someone requires that others within the culture take responsibility for what happened - hence the apologies. It may help to explain another reason why the protesters blamed the US and not just the filmmaker.

 

[apeiron]

It may help to explain another reason why the protesters blamed the US and not just the filmmaker.

That may be so. But there is also this...

Protesters at the American embassy in Cairo on September 11th erroneously believed the offensive film to have been shown on “American state television”: in a place with a weak tradition of independent broadcasting, that claim is not as absurd as it might be elsewhere.

http://www.economist.com/node/21562960

 

[leroyjenkens]

So if a US citizen murdered the filmmaker, they would praise the United States and stop saying "death to America"? I doubt it.
If it's true they blame an entire country for the actions of one person, I'm sure it doesn't work the other way; praising an entire country for the actions of one person.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Here is another opinion to consider in our discussion:

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday the maker of an anti-Islam film that triggered violent protests across the Muslim world abused his right to freedom of expression by making the movie, which he called a "disgraceful and shameful act."

"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose," Ban told a news conference.

"When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way."

"My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/un-chief-says-anti-islam-filmmaker-abused-freedom-205207133.html

 

[Bobbywhy]

One more example of freedom of speech being protected here in the USA:

NEW YORK, Sept 19 | Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:28pm EDT

(Reuters) - As Muslim countries reverberate with fierce protests over a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad, an ad equating Islamic jihad with savagery is due to appear next week in 10 New York City subway stations despite transit officials' efforts to block it.

The city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority had refused the ads, citing a policy against demeaning language. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is behind the ad campaign, then sued and won a favorable ruling from a U.S. judge in Manhattan.

According to court documents, the ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel/Defeat Jihad."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/usa-muslim-ads-idUSL1E8KJH1Q20120919?type=marketsNews

 

[russ_watters]

I'm wondering: does anyone have any examples of American governments attempting to suppress freedom of speech in anti-Christian speech? Or even just denounced it as abuse of freedom of speech?

 

[Evo]

I'm wondering: does anyone have any examples of American governments attempting to suppress freedom of speech in anti-Christian speech? Or even just denounced it as abuse of freedom of speech?

I don't know of any anti-christian hate speech. Do you have examples? I'm sure I could find a lot of hate speeches by Christians that weren't suppressed (abortion, gay rights, etc...)

 

[Bobbywhy]

I'm wondering: does anyone have any examples of American governments attempting to suppress freedom of speech in anti-Christian speech? Or even just denounced it as abuse of freedom of speech?

I looked for and could not easily find any "any examples of American governments attempting to suppress freedom of speech in anti-Christian speech?" that you asked about.

You have posted lots examples of vile attacks on lots of Religions.
But nothing in what you have posted contains any example of the "American government's ..."

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, we don't even allow those websites here. They aren't mainstream. Do you have any examples of hate speech against christians that people saw in mainstream media?

Huh?

1. All of those are examples from mainstream media, with the exception of the gay club, which is a link the the actual website. But you can find references to them in mainstream media too. It is just that some of my examples are linked from sites criticizing them instead of the original sources.

2. The the example that serves as the prototype for this thread was not produced by mainstream media, so it is an odd criteria for you to invoke here.

3. You asked if I knew of any anti-Christian hate speech. I do and I showed it.

4. We're not discussing the content of any of those links directly, just like this thread is not discussing the merits and teachings of Islam or Christianity. Neither rule applies. This would be like if you asked me for examples of crackpottery and then said it was a violation of the rules to post the examples!

And sorry, I'm Roman Catholic so I was raised believing that I wasn't associated with Protestant Christian religions. We were against protestant christians, you know, since they burned so many Catholics at the stake trying to wipe Catholics out of existence in Europe. So when you said "christian" I thought "protestant".

Sure, it is tautological that every religion thinks it is doing it right and thinks all others are doing it wrong, but the definition of "Christianity" is pretty straightforward. And I gave examples of both (including examples that can't be differentiated). Apology accepted, though -- but again...relevance? I was providing examples of double-standard/juxtaposition wrt to Islam. I could have picked any other religion as an example: Judaism? Mormonism? Buddhism? It was just easier to find more examples by casting a wider net (though Judaism in particular probably gets more than Christianity).

 

[Evo]

Russ when I asked for examples, I expected examples from mainstream media sources that we recognize. And yes, we even recognize fox news.

When I asked to have the rules on what constitutes "primary sources" I was told we didn't have to be more specific in the rules because everyone should know what a "primary source" is, and if not, then I should state what is acceptable.

Russ, I've never heard of the sites you linked to. They are not "primary sites".

 

[russ_watters]

But nothing in what you have posted contains any example of the "American government's ..."

Yes, I know: I was fulfilling Evo's request, not my request. I looked for examples of governments' suppression of speech against other religions and couldn't find any, which is why I asked others if they'd seen any. Point being, we know that anti-religion speech exists against multiple major religions, but I don't know if there is government suppression of it for any religion but Islam.

FYI, there is one iffy example I can think of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

This example is not of suppression, though, because the scandal was over the fact that the government funded this defamation of Christianity as art.

 

[Evo]

Yes, I know: I was fulfilling Evo's request, not my request. I looked for examples of governments' suppression of speech against other religions and couldn't find any, which is why I asked others if they'd seen any.

And I asked if you had any examples, examples of what was in your post, why would you think anything else?

No, you asked about government suppression of anti-christian speech.

I'm wondering: does anyone have any examples of American governments attempting to suppress freedom of speech in anti-Christian speech?