News Was there anything wrong with the Cairo US Embassy's statement

[OmCheeto]

Does this mean the person who made the movie will be provided protection? Who will be paying for the protection?

Hopefully he goes to jail for violating his parole.

15 September 2012
Throughout his life in hiding, Rushdie was often criticised by people who resented the £1million a year it cost to keep him under police protection.

a fatwā issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989.

(2012-1989)*(£1million/year)*($1.70/£)=$39,100,000

Ironic how the "freedom of speech" can turn out so expensive. Not to mention the lives lost, and that will continue to be lost over this.

Nov 4, 2010
...
And who wrote the book? Knowing full well what the consequences would be, shrouded behind a western wall of free speech.

Rushdie is a slimeball...

----------------------------------

dear god, whatever flavor of pasta you may be, please have mercy on my soul.

Bacile is also a slimeball...
and I'll pay for his one way ticket to Benghazi.

Wouldn't be the first time I've made such an offer.

 

[rootX]

The 9/11 statement from the US embassy in Cairo, suggests taking action against such people will not improve the US position in Islamic countries.

It could have been much better if they had just put the statement in front of the embassy. Putting on their website was a mistake IMO because it got attention of the wrong audiences.

 

[daveb]

I have a problem with someone saying speech on certain religious topics is abusing the freedom of speech.

Wel, it all hinges on what the person meant by "abuse". Frankly, I can't see how one could "abuse" any freedom (otherwise, the implication is that there are certain restrictions on freedoms, and IMO thershould be none). If by "abuse" they simply mean using it only to incite, then, yes, I would agree. However, that still doesn't mean the Freedom of Speech should be (legally) restrained.

The part I find interesting is that the implication from the statement is that Freedom of Religion (or rather, the freedom to not be offended, which is not a freedom here) trumps Freedom of Speech.

 

[daveb]

It's covered. The violence is on the people causing the violence, not the person making the speech.

Brandenburg v Ohio seems to disagree with you. However, the original question of incitement to "public disorder" is another question - if it passes the test of imminent lawless action, then, yes, it is also covered. But if it fails that test, it isn't. Also, it depends on what the legal definition of "incite" means (I'm no attorney so can't say). Does it mean that the speech calls for such action, or does it mean that such action will likely result from said speech. I see this as a grey area (from a legal standpoint), though I agree only the actual attackers are legally liable.

Then again, the US has no jurisdiction (yes, I understand the embassies are US territory) in Libya as a whole, so I have to wonder how such a law applies at an embassy.

 

[Gokul43201]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but it seems to me like the OP is based on a false dichotomy. Comdemnation of A does not equal sympathy for anti-A protesters (violent or not).

On a separate note I think the Embassy should have not felt compelled to denounce the video in the first place, but I'm aware that it's way too easy to pronounce judgment from the safety of my couch.

 

[Jack21222]

These people are violent fanatics who still live in the 12th century.

This is way off topic, but I can't resist myself. Arabs in the 12th century were the guardians of western civilization. This is in the period called the Islamic Golden Age. The works of the ancient Greeks may very well have been lost if the Arabs hadn't translated them to Arabic. This is also why so many stars in the sky have Arabic names, such as Algol and Aldebaran.

So, I feel it's off the mark to accuse 12th century Muslims and Arabs of being "violent fanatics." In those years, it was the Christians who were the violent fanatics. The 12th century saw the rise of inquisitions and two crusades.

Again, sorry for being off topic, but accusing terrorists of "living in the 12th century" would be a great compliment to them. Their trouble is that they still live in the 20th century, rather than the 21st.

 

[edward]

This is way off topic, but I can't resist myself. Arabs in the 12th century were the guardians of western civilization. This is in the period called the Islamic Golden Age. The works of the ancient Greeks may very well have been lost if the Arabs hadn't translated them to Arabic. This is also why so many stars in the sky have Arabic names, such as Algol and Aldebaran.

So, I feel it's off the mark to accuse 12th century Muslims and Arabs of being "violent fanatics." In those years, it was the Christians who were the violent fanatics. The 12th century saw the rise of inquisitions and two crusades.

Again, sorry for being off topic, but accusing terrorists of "living in the 12th century" would be a great compliment to them. Their trouble is that they still live in the 20th century, rather than the 21st.

Ahh but they were violent then as now about denigrating Islam or Mohamed including jihad. Not to say that Christians were not or are not violent, but Islam remained more isolated from the world and from change.

The murder of intellectuals and artists who criticize Mohammed is Sunna. Sunna is the perfect example of Mohammed’s life. When Mohammed captured Mecca, he first prayed, then he destroyed all religious art and then he issued death warrants for the artists and intellectuals who had opposed him. There are only two new facts in the Koran, a derivative work. The first new fact is that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, and the second new truth is that if you don’t believe he is prophet of Allah, you can be killed

http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/you-can-never-awaken-a-man-who-is/