By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Do you respect the right of free speech? What do you think the limits are?
Do you think defamation and humiliation of Jesus, Mohammed, Pope ,political leaders ,atheists is ok by making cartoons, depictions etc?
Do you think it is ok to make cartoons,depictions mocking certain race or belief?
Do you think it is ok to make cartoons,depictions mocking the death of the cartoonists themselves, and lampooning their work and efforts?
What do you think the limits are?
The link with China is ... ? There's censorship in China, but you hardly link anything to it in your question.
I believe it's ok to joke (joke : I include satire, caricatures, etc) about anything, and that censorship does not solves problems, it just hide problems and promote emotional reaction over rational thinking. I think limits can be a good thing (typically, don't kill others, don't scam, don't steal, industrial & business regulations, etc.), but for personal expression, I think limits are harmful and ineffective at what they are supposed to improve.
Why I think so:
* The joke can be bad (ie. trashy defamation), it might not be funny for everybody. It will always hurt the feelings of someone or a whole group. For any joke, you will shock *someone*. A joke is funny because it packs some punch.
* A joke will hurt someone. Where you draw the line ? How do you decide that someone is hurt badly by a joke ? The one who yells louder ? If a line is drawn, it will be based on who is the most vocal about being hurt. It's purely emotional, there's no rationality. In the end, the one with the loudest voice and who's the most scary wins. Hardly a sane decision.
* Censorship shoehorns a consensus that does not exist. You can forbid hate speech, people won't stop hating something. They will just be more discrete, eventually. The cause of the hate won't disappear simply because it's forbidden to express it. It's worse than that : it cuts attempts to think about the root cause of problems. The topic is taboo, we can't really think about it. Thinking of the causes of a problem is usually the first step towards solving a problem.
* If someone is hurt and get angry over a caricature of his/her beliefs, what does it says about his/her faith ? That smells like deep insecurity to me. You can answer to satire, you can work on a brilliant answer, you can one-up the mocker. That promotes rational debates, and it's non-violent. If a joke put yourself in deep questioning, it's not a bad thing : something is probably fragile in your own vision. What's best, being enraged about it and in denial, or starting a personal journey for understanding ? With censorship, you just smash that opportunity. It's who is feeling hurt the most who wins.
Theory: I think absolutely everything should be up for discussion with no exception whatsoever, absolute freedom of speech should be a constitutional right with no possibility for change.
Obstacle: The main problem with this school of thought is that people with a good control over enough wealth or media can gather enough puppets to manipulate masses into believing half-truths, partial truths, plain lies or otherwise be imposed taboos. Because that's how it works.
Response: A high level of education at every level of society, costly and never to be taken for granted.
gouxiong:
While I agree with the right of free speach and free access to the information I would question that education can prevent or even solve the problem of intentional misuse of information or people maneuvering. As the example may serve the 20th century nazism and communism in Europe. Going then deeper to the history there would be more examples of highly skilled, educated and capable people being attracted by "strange ideas"and in a consequence acting in horrible ways. I assume that the problem of information is exactly a problem of modern age. It's not only about the incorrect or false information. Even absolutely correct and true information presented in prepared sequence can result in creating of "intended" effect. I am not aware of any solution of this problem on.society level but current European situation shows the problem has to be taken seriously.
RiriRiri:
No idea what you're trying to say. Please be more cryptic.
A good general rule to follow: if you think it might cause bodily harm to someone, then don't do it. Shouting "Muhammad was a rapist!" will not cause bodily harm to someone. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater will.
DrMonkey:
A bit of safety training and proper social environment might make people leave the theater in proper order if someone shout "Fire !". Education :)
hunny797:
what is the reason of this preference of physical pain over mental/emotional pain
hi2u:
@hunny797: I have received much emotional pain from you challenging my answer. You should really limit your speech by not challenging other people's answers so that you don't cause emotional pain to anyone else.
laowaigentleman:
Oliver Wendell-Holmes is probably America's most over-rated public figure ever.
One of the limit is loudly making fun of foreigners thinking that they don't understand the language, then looking stupid when you realize that they understand. Cowards, locals are cowards.
@hi2u
According to your genius general rule to follow:
Saying ``Q: What does the Pope say to young boys at communion? A: You can't squeal on me with your mouth full, can you!`` will not cause bodily harm to someone. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater will.
hi2u: You are genius !
DrMonkey:
<sarcasm on>I feel very, very offended at your mention of child abuse. I think you should be censored, it's so offensive, it causes me emotional pain<sarcasm off> You just replace "bodily harm" by "bodily harm amd tremendous psychological harm", his argument is valid again under your critic. No, being offended does not equals to being a child abused by an adult.
hi2u:
@thelatinodancer: your sarcastic response deeply offends me and hurts my ego. Please apologize immediately or suffer the consequences as decided by the courts according to my testimony of emotional pain, as anything you say that causes others emotional pain is punishable according to the law.
thelatinodancer:
@hi2u:
You do not deserve to respected. You are just another selfish ! It is ok for you that you can make joke about anyone but i can`t make a joke about anybody i want.
What kind of double standard is it?
If anything somebody says that causes others emotional pain is punishable according to the law, then why the hell you think so many caricature publishings still exist?
hi2u:
@thelatinodancer: English is clearly not your first language as you did not hear the sarcasm in my last response. So in the future I will use <sarcasm> to prevent causing confusion for you. Now let me say clearly, making jokes about the pope and muhammad are ok. But only an idiot would think that the molestation of children by adults is acceptable as free speech. Agreed?
Defamation? Who decides what the “truth” about Jesus is? What right does anyone have to prevent other people from contradicting their utterly non-provable account?
If I claim the existence of a magical superhero whose alleged moral pronouncements have metaphysical authority over everyone else – would it be reasonable for another person to say “Bullshit”? YES.
Humiliation? Humiliation means being made to feel extremely inadequate or embarrassed in front of others. An idea can’t be humiliated. Neither can a historical person. Neither can a mythical one.
The word you’re looking for is 'ridicule' or 'poke fun at'. And I think ridiculing Jesus, Mohammed, the Pope, political leaders and atheists by making cartoons is absolutely necessary. People’s beliefs, claims and idols need to be held up to scrutiny, especially when people claim that their beliefs and idols have authority over others.
I have certain beliefs about morality, the nature of the universe and what constitutes a reasonable basis for knowledge. I don’t believe in supernatural forces, all-powerful but inexplicably jealous creators, or knowledge through divine revelation.
And yet if someone ridicules my beliefs, I don’t start screaming incoherently and demanding their death. That is because I’m a calm and rational person, not a fearful, ignorant, jealous, belligerent, murderous one. My beliefs can be articulated, explained and justified calmly and rationally in conversation.
I feel a great sense of frustration at people who believe that certain topics (religion, political ideology, etc.) are off limits. Being convinced that one should no longer question proclamations of authority is what ideological enslavement is.
Religious people have cultivated an image of “particularly susceptible to offense” so that people will not challenge their beliefs. People have been convinced that the deconstruction of an idea, or even a contradictory statement, is a personal insult. This immunity from ridicule allows stupid beliefs to flourish. Which would all be well and good if those stupid beliefs were confined to those people’s little brains, but they’re not, are they. Moving on…
Should racists be allowed to make cartoons ridiculing race? YES.
Racism can only truly be overcome by people stating their stupid racist beliefs then having other people demonstrate why they are ridiculous. The free exchange of information has overcome all sorts of stupidity throughout history. Racism is one of the toughest ones (due to a survival-related biological tendency to fear or distrust difference), but it exists the least in societies that have enshrined freedom of speech.
We only make progress through the free exchange of information. Which means allowing everyone to express themselves, interact with a wide variety of opinions, and thereby refine their ideas. That’s why we are more enlightened creatures than we were in the Dark Ages.
What it comes down to is this: Beliefs that are reasonable stand up well to ridicule. Beliefs that aren’t, don’t. Thus the moral outrage from people with stupid beliefs. It’s just a last resort against the advance of enlightenment, lucidity, and reason.
RiriRiri:
Agreed completely. But beyond legal control and/or constitutional protection, the idea of free exchange of information hits two big obstacles everywhere in the world: first is corporate ideology. Richard Stallman would tell you a great deal about that. What does free exchange of information mean in a society where I can protect any idea I claim to have had, and only make it available for a sum of money or simply not at all.
Second is, related to the first one, and mass entertainment versus mass enlightenment. So far, I've only seen money push for more stupidity more than I've seen the opposite.
I'm not contradicting you, I'm just trying to see how this fits your thought, should you agree with my statement.
Shining_brow:
Samsara - are you aware of the gaping hole in your 'argument'?
From the perspective of someone who does NOT have a supreme overlord-type being that they worship, your ideas sound logical. However, from the perspective of those who do believe in such things, it doesn't work.
Let's change the boundaries a bit... how would you feel if someone close and important to you was the subject of ridicule or humiliation... would you still say it's ok?
You also changed your argument halfway through... are you advocating for free discussion of topics, or are you arguing for the right to ridicule and humiliate?
Samsara:
@ RiriRiri
While I guess the idea of intellectual property gives a monetary incentive for invention, I'm sure it has been more effective in restricting the proliferation of technology and art (people picking up ideas and carrying them forward).
I'll read something by the fellow you mentioned and see what my opinion is after that.
"What does free exchange of information mean in a society where I can protect any idea I claim to have had, and only make it available for a sum of money or simply not at all."
Really interesting point, though companies being allowed to restrict "intellectual property" from proliferation is still tons better (in my opinion) than people not being allowed to express themselves or make observations. People in mind-prison societies tend not to make groundbreaking discoveries to begin with.
Freedom of expression is fundamentally important.
Freedom to make use of other people's ideas would be a good thing, but is less important, given that those ideas would never have existed in a society without freedom of expression.
Could capitalist society function without the idea of intellectual property? I haven't thought about it enough yet. If it could, I will start being annoyed about that too.
RiriRiri:
I believe his books are available for free download on the FSF website. Otherwise the guy has a lot of conferences uploaded around on Youtube. They're all more or less the same and I guarantee it's not an hour of your life you'll waste.
I don't know how to put this...
But when cartoons start pissing you off... I think your priorities are all wrong.
People can make jokes about any subject so long as the people hearing it know it is a joke and not something hurtful or hateful deliberately designed to make others suffer.
I once read a book called "Truly Tasteless Jokes" but I knew before I opened the book it would make fun of any and every category of people.
Dr. Monkey nailed it. When people get physically or mentally damaged by the speech of others, then the line has been crossed.
DrMonkey:
Wow, I said that physical and psychological damage is not ok and shall be the domain of state justice. But I did not said that the frustration caused by a satire, a joke or a caricature equals to psychological damage. I *DO NO* think that *AT ALL*. I think that if someone is feeling frustration or even rage for a sarcasm, the problem is with the person, not the sarcasm.
Funny, no one's mentioned the word 'respect' yet.
I may not believe in someone else's beliefs, but I can maintain a certain level of respect for their beliefs.
Satire, sarcasm and innuendo are not universal across cultures and languages and therefore some respect, consideration and self-restraint should be put into play when openly or publicly doing something that could be considered disrespectful or too risque.
I believe "common sense" is another oft forgotten term.
DrMonkey:
You are right... But now, imagine you have to write that into laws. I think justice works better if laws are the least ambiguous as language permits it. Free speech is simple, it's non ambiguous : anything can be said, nobody have to face justice for merely saying, writing, drawing something.
Common sense and respect are real things. I understand that one can feel discomfort hearing something, that's natural. But I can't wrap my head around non-ambiguous, universal definitions that everybody can agree on about respect. You can force one definition, but it will a major PITA to enforce, because the line is so blurry and subjective. In the other end, common sense and respect can be taught, rather shoehorned into laws. That sounds way more scalable. It will be imperfect, but I prefer a few trolls trolling around than a justice stunted by poorly designed laws.
Sinobear:
Common sense cannot be written into laws, otherwise, most of the population on earth would be fined/imprisoned.
Being inflammatory for the sake of readership/being inflammatory is against common sense. Being disrespectful the same.
Anyhoo, I'm not trying to bring anything new into the debate, I am a Jeffersonian at heart (go figure for a Canadian) and that includes the responsibility of pedigree and good breeding to know the difference between "freedom" and "irresponsibility."
Samsara:
Regarding "common sense":
All people have personal and cultural biases which inform their notion of "common sense". One person's feeling of what is reasonable or just is not necessarily shared by others.
I think it is common sense to point out logical flaws when I encounter them.
Many Islamic people think it is common sense to get angry when their beliefs are questioned.
Problems ensue.
Sinobear:
Not debating that at all. It's just interesting, from a sociological standpoint, to see such libertarian views knowing that everyone has their limit on what they, personally, would tolerate.
We all could make a long list of things we'd want censored if "everything and anything" was allowed in public (print), then the attitudes would start gravitating towards the center (at least) again.
rasklnik:
Hey, if an Islamic country like Pakistan or Algeria wants to ban cartoons of M. let them...but don't complain when France does. If you want to live in a Islamic state you can always move to Saudi...
jetfire9000:
Satire and sarcasm are not universal art forms for all cultures. I believe most people can agree with this. But what, if anything, can be said to be universal? The desire to better ones life? The desire to succeed? The desire for love? Maybe only a few things such as these. But once you meet this point, there are no universal truths afterward. Because the ways that cultures seek to attain these things are all different. What "common sense" and "respect" means to a middle easterner is completely different than what it means to a European, a Chinese, or an African.
The most basic ideas... justice, good, or as you mention - "disrespectful" and "risque" - all of these are filtered through time and space. When you name one of these concepts for its fundamental importance, you are doing so because you feel it is a universal concept. But the way people think and define of them is not universal. You cannot make laws that appeal to everybody perfectly at the same time when everybody has different values. That's a major challenge to the multicultural society, and the friction isn't going to go away. At the end of the day, the party guilty committed murder in cold blood for one of their ideals. They used an extraordinary means to "right" something they could have attempted to challenge in a less extreme way. That's almost never an effective way to achieve the goal at hand.
No limits.
If you draw something that offends me, all I have to do is think "What a tool" and then not look at your drawings anymore.
Stiggs:
Exactly, like any rational grown up does. Going psycho and killing people for it is pathetic, childish and a massive over reaction.
hi2u:
@Stiggs: There are millions of Muslims that would disagree with you.
Stiggs:
Then I'll reserve my respect for the millions of muslims that just say "what a tool" and turn the other cheek. They are showing they are the better and bigger people, and giving their religion some credibility in my opinion.
1. No. I don't think it's okay.
2. No. I don't think it's okay.
3. No. I don't think it's okay.
Difference is, I support freedom of speech. Just because I don't think it's okay (all of the scenarios bother me a lot), doesn't mean I want to limit other people's right to free expression.
I hate Charlie Hebdo and pretty much everything they publish, despite not being a Muslim. Why? I think they're vulgar, disgusting, and pathetic. However, shouldn't they be able say those things? I just don't have to pay attention to them.
Shining_brow:
That first should be "Girls just wanna have fun"... Cyndi Lauper.
The second is "Don't Worry, Be Happy"....
I think anyone should have the right to criticize others but they must accept the fact that they can be criticized back. Inciting hatred towards others is a big no no (fox news, i'm looking at you). People of importance should be mocked regularly. It reminds people that they are only human and no one is perfect. As for gods, why not they are just fictional characters anyway.
In France , denying the holocaust under cartoons is illegal because it troubles the tranquility of the French society. The French government is not stupid and they know how to harmonize their society. But in every country you must follow and respect the rules even if they are ambiguous and serving some agendas "When in Rome do what the Romans do".
thelatinodancer:
What kind of double standard is it? Denying holocaust (which is result of German racism) is illegal in cartoons in France however you can humiliate and degrade Pope,Catholics,Muhammad,Muslims, Jesus, Buddhists etc?
@DrMonkey
You said before that you believe it's ok to joke (joke : You include satire, caricatures, etc) about anything, and that censorship does not solves problems,
Then why it is illegal denying the holocaust under cartoons in France however why it is not illegal to humiliate and degrade Pope,Catholics,Muhammad,Muslims, Jesus, Buddhists etc?
Maybe, maybe and maybe (and I'm leaning much more towards 'no' for each).
I do believe in a certain amount of free speech, and all topics should be open for discussion - however, deliberately trying to humiliate, offend, insult something or someone, just because you personally don't agree with it, is not only... well, insulting, but also is a form of hate-speech.
Now, for some reason, many people think that it's bad for various muslim groups (and others, truth be told) to try to incite those who agree with them to go out and kill others who don't agree with them... or to stone them, or to incite violence against them,, etc. And yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, it's ok!
Similarly, if people think total freedom of speech is ok, then they shouldn't also have a problem being followed down the road while someone is yelling insults and taunts in their face - insults, denigrations, etc... after all, that's freedom of speech - isn't it?? It should be ok for someone to try to incite a riot... or to urge people on to kill, bash or rape someone...
No?? So, there's a line, is there???
To me, yes, there's a line - and that line is the intention to offend or humiliate or denigrate.
We live in a world where ignorance is allowed to flourish. Same with stupidity. Some may ask "what harm does it do?" (the satire, or even racist cartoons, etc). Well, there's an easy answer to that... just look up the statistics for teen suicides by homosexual youths. Look up suicide rates in minority areas where harrassment and denigration are common and 'accepted'.
And look at what happens to a society when our young are not brought up believing that such insult, humiliation and denigration are considered acceptable.
(FTR, I do NOT believe that humans, just for being born human, are the ultimate perfection in a species. And, therefore, they ought NOT to be allowed all these awesome 'freedoms' and 'rights' they go on about, as if they know best - they don't!)
RiriRiri:
Freedom of speech is about ideas and do not cover personal harassment. If I follow and insult you, the following should be prosecuted, and the insulting taken in consideration.
Auxiliary issues such as a deliberate spread of rumors for personal gains is another issue to be discussed. I believe this belongs more to the jurisprudence literature more than the legal literature. In that respect I truly admire the US for doing things right (and please people do not quote me your bad exceptions, I'm sure they exist, I'm just taking about trends, nothing's perfect). FOS as a constitutional right. This and the right to own a gun. Not sure fundamentalist morons would dare break in a building where possibly security is armed, not mentioning individuals.
Samsara:
Suicide of gay teens because of denigration.... Hmmm.... In which communities are gay youths most likely to be denigrated?
RELIGIOUS ONES.
Should we be able to criticise the ideas of stupid bigots? Their stupid bigot god did, after all, say that gay people are an abomination. But I guess we can't point out that he's a stupid imaginary bigot whose alleged words cause suicide, because that would be insensitive. Insensitive to the people denigrating gay teens.
Much like we shouldn't be insensitive to people who believe it is OK to mutilate the genitals of young girls, marry 9-year-olds, stone women to death, and kill people for having different beliefs. Because criticising their (wonderful and unique) belief system would be hurtful.
You really can't understand the difference between ridiculing an idea and harassing a person, can you?
Shining_brow:
@Samsara
"You really can't understand the difference between ridiculing an idea and harassing a person, can you?"
What's got your personally involved in this, such that you're up to making a personal attack on someone without actually debating the argument?? Your original 'point' of your comment is rather one-sided, and unsupported! I take it that you have a personal grudge against religion
Secondly, the line between ridicule of an idea, and harrassment of people, is actually a very thin one. If you've been on the wrong side of that line, you'd understand.
In one argument (above) you're all about freedom of expression, the right to debate openly, honestly, rationally, intellectually... but when it comes to religion, you show remarkable intolerance (and ignorance!) - not to mention a serious moral high-ground perspective (ie, superiority complex). Quite similar to the attitude to various religious people - including of the variety we've been discussing...
Now, ridicule vs harrassment.... I think the fact that Mohommed has been made the target of multiple ridicules over the years constitutes a form of harrassment (and no, it doesn't matter if others have been as well). Harrassment doesn't need to be something that is constant and in your face. When what you are (or claim to be) is publicly shown to be a bad thing, when it is put down as something people should not be, when this is accepted by the public to be 'true' - then it is a form of harrassment. Those teenage suicides I was referencing aren't happening because there are bullies beating up those boys and girls, calling them bad names, etc etc... they are doing it because they can't find acceptance,and they feel they have no-one around them to have a deep personal connection. In their daily outings, the 'idea' of being homosexual is ridiculed (even if people around them don't know anyone). Obviously, if a person hasn't told or indicated in any way that they are homosexual, then some would say that they haven't been 'harrassed'... I disagree!
And, I think this idea stretches to many other areas. Which is why I mentioned minority groups. Can you imagine being part of a minority group which is constantly shown on TV as being the scapegoat for all evils? That people who come from your group have been shown to be evil incarnate (with only grudging support shown from the sidelines). Individuals may not be directly and personally 'harrassed' in their face, but if it's what the majority of the public seems to be saying...
If you truly believe we should all have the right to freedom of expression, then you also have to accept that there will be stupid and bigoted people expressing their ideas... ones that you won't like. Some you will ignore... some you'll take personally.
(you'll also note, I hope, that what happened in Paris wasn't because of someone ridiculing the idea of genital mutilation, nor of 9-year old marriages, nor of stoning adulterers to death... it was ridiculing a religious icon... I hope you can see that there is a MASSIVE difference there!!!)
Samsara:
Ridiculing Mohammed (who according to Islamic scripture did marry a 9 year old girl) is not harassment. It is ridicule. A conscious, physical person can be harassed. A historical person or myth cannot.
This isn't a vendetta against religion. If any given atheist group said that atheism gave them the right to tell women how to dress, or to stop people from expressing opinions, I would ridicule their ideas too. If atheists worldwide declare that drawing a picture of Charles Darwin is forbidden, the first thing everyone should do is draw a picture of Charles Darwin. But atheists tend not to do that. They also tend not to go crazy when their metaphysical beliefs are challenged.
Mohammed needs to be ridiculed because of the things his words are used to justify. Moral outrage from Islamic people occurs because their ideas simply don't stand up in calm, rational debate. If an ideology, idea or idol requires criticism to be banned, it's probably not a good one (e.g. Communism).
"If you truly believe we should all have the right to freedom of expression, then you also have to accept that there will be stupid and bigoted people expressing their ideas... ones that you won't like. Some you will ignore... some you'll take personally."
Yes... That's what I was getting at. I don't think other people should be silenced just because they might express an opinion that I don't like.
Shining_brow:
You're still leaving gaping holes in your argument.
Firstly, you advocate ridiculing Mohommed because of what some Muslims do with regards to their holy book and teachings. There are over 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. They do not all agree with many of those aspects. If they did, we'd all be in deep shit! Fortunately, only a very small minority get violent when such images happen... although I'd imagine quite a lot would feel they had been attacked.
By allowing a religious icon to be ridiculed, you are first showing an indecent amount of disrespect to a very large number of people, and second showing an incredible amount of ignorance. Do you think the whole Christian community would feel outraged if Jesus was subjected to ridicule just because of one small branch preaches what they do (eg, Westboro). Your ridicule is apparently to be targetted towards the extremists... and yet, it's having a HUGE shotgun effect - striking at everyone who calls themselves Muslim.
You also seem to assume that all people are going to respond calmly and logically to such ridicule - when such ridicule by its very nature is designed to not be logical and rational - and thus to stir up an emotive response. While I do not 'agree with the terrorist attacks that happened in Paris, I do understand why they happened - and am not even slightly surprised by it! You deliberately play with fire, you're going to get burnt!
Also, you're still justifying attacking a person - and not their ideas. From a purely sane perspective, it makes far more sense to attack (ridicule through logic) the specific problems of their beliefs - genital mutilation, stonings, under-age marriage, etc - than by making fun of their most sacred of icons... this lacks complete logic to me. (btw, remember that back in that time period, what we consider 'under-age' for a marriage was quite normal..!)
In direct response to your last comment - 2 things. Firstly, as I've said, big difference between expressing a well-thought out opinion - and merely trying to insult and degrade someone (or, in this case, effectively 1/3 of the world's population!)
Secondly - if this is the situation, then don't be surprised when people armed with AK47s burst into a room and start shooting people!
(my actual opinion - which I think I've shown above - it's perfectly fine to discuss topics - including and perhaps especially sensitive ones in the public domain. Attacking a person, or trying to denigrate them, is not. Also, my argument is trying to show respect to the vast majority of Muslims who would sit down and calmly argue various points of their faith - not the extremists. )
Samsara:
1. Ridiculing an idol or historical figure IS NOT the same as harassing or intimidating a real person. Some people try to CLAIM it is the same, as a means to prevent people from challenging religion.
People with good ideas don't need to create this image of being easily offended, because ridicule is ineffective against good ideas.
2. Anyone who claims to be a messenger of God, and that men are superior to women, is a fair target for ridicule, regardless of their followers.
Even if we ignore the barbaric practices that exist because of the Islamic religion, I have the right to ridicule Mohammed because of HIS stupidity alone.
Shining_brow:
You keep mixing up your arguments... is that intentional? You're also not actually backing up your argument - just making statements...
Firstly - "Ridiculing an idol or historical figure IS NOT the same as harassing or intimidating a real person."
Yes, one is "ridicule", the other is "harrassment or intimidation". While I did seem to use them interchangeably above, it's because of the similarities. However, ridicule is really quite different to harrassment and intimidation (which are somewhat more similar to each other). Yes, semantic argument, but ... I presume you are referring to the semantics involved... what's the technical differences between them and how relevant is it? Well, when you're talking about the followers of a religion which has a central character, to attack one is to attack them all. You, being atheist, refuse to acknowledge that. But surely you can understand the concept of the group-mindset?? If I attack your father, surely you would have the feelings of being attacked yourself?? Doing so more than once, with the intent of labelling all 'followers' of that person the same way, continuously, and with no actual argument or debate (ie, ridicule) would be a form of harrassment and intimidation.
Secondly, you're also trying to indicate that a 'historical person or idol' isn't a 'real person'. This, to me, is clearly BS! Mohommed was a real person. Many people in the world are named after this real person. Buddha was a real person (obviously, I'm referring to Siddhartha Gautama). He is also a historical person... and to many, and idol. Billy Idol is not only a real person, but also (arguably) a historical person, and also and idol...
All of them can, therefore, be ridiculed (although, NOT 'harrassed or intimidated - except Billy Idol... cos he's still alive!) All of those persons currently alive named after the prophet Mohommed can also be harrassed and intimidated.
Thirdly, 'ridicule', whether harrassing or intimidating, is not 'challenging religion'. And, similarly, to challenge religion does not require ridicule, harrassment nor intimidation. This is something I'm shocked you don't seem to appreciate!
"People with good ideas don't need to create this image of being easily offended, because ridicule is ineffective against good ideas."
BULLSHIT!!! Ideas themselves cannot 'feel' ridicule. Nor can a dead person (we presume). However, the bearers of those ideas can. And it's completely irrelevant whether the idea is good or not. It depends entirely on the person/s holding that/those ideas, and their ego/mental state/confidence, and the level of ridicule etc. Gallileo was seriously harrassed, intimidated, ridiculed for his ideas... great ideas, as it turns out. Fortunately, he was made of sterner stuff than many, and ploughed on! Others, however, weren't so strong, and for their ideas they were even killed (after torture...!) Similarly, the holders of bad ideas have been ridiculed. Some even survived quite some time,while their ideas were ridiculed.
2. Anyone who claims to be a messenger of God, and that men are superior to women, is a fair target for ridicule, regardless of their followers.
Even if we ignore the barbaric practices that exist because of the Islamic religion, I have the right to ridicule Mohammed because of HIS stupidity alone.
This is the debate of this thread (to a greater or lesser extent). You feel it's ok to ridicule someone - and you have the 'right' to do so... where, exactly, do you get that 'right' from? This is PURELY your own personal opinion. While in many lands, you can do so from a legal perspective, I'd advise you to be cautious where you express such things. While you may think you have this 'right' (are you American?? Americans have this thing about 'rights'...), be aware that expressing such can have consequences - after all, they have the 'right' to bash you to death (for a given definition of 'right'!!!) If you mean a 'legal right', in some countries you do, in other countries you don't. I challenge you to go and defend this 'right' of yours in Saudi Arabia!
*I* claim - such 'rights' as you seem to be referring to should be limited, and both parties are responsible for the fallout of expressing this 'right' (ie, if you get yourself beheaded for expressing your ridicule of Mohommed in the middle of Saudi, it's on your head (haha!) YOU bear responsibility for what happened (as much as them).. and all this talk of 'rights to ridicule' is meaningless. Also, you want 'freedom of expression'... well, getting your head cut off is a form of expression - no??
If you don't agree with the above, then you're probably thinking that people should be more 'responsible' and 'civilised' etc etc... well, tough! Humans suck! They're NOT like that!!! That's why I don't agree with complete freedom of expression in the public domain by fuckwits who think they can just belittle and ridicule who and what they want... and why in my country, 'hate speech' and 'incitement to violence' is a crime! So is 'ridiculing' religious figures... because humans take things personally, and it's oh so much easier to outlaw such speech, than it is to stop a person from feeling emotionally victimised, and then laying into the community with a machete or AK47...
hi2u:
@samsara: Ridicule is not the same as calm, rational debate. If you want to defend your right to say what you want or to ridicule religion, then you must respect the right of followers of said religions to say or ridicule what they want, be it homosexuality or other contentious issue, though it's most often the case that people of religious conscience calmly state their positions while people like you ridicule them
@shining_brow: Yes, different countries and their people follow different laws which influence the peoples' perception of what is acceptable or not. Thus the question of this thread should be "do you respect the right of free speech IN FRANCE/IN AMERICA/(COUNTRY OF CHOICE) and what do you think the limits are?"
As an American, I generally respect the right of anyone to say or ridicule what they want IN AMERICA, because that's what America is about. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I would not suggest such a thing, which is why multiculturalism was bound to fail, has failed, and will always fail. Immigrants to a country should adapt to the laws and customs of the country, not the other way around.
Samsara:
It has nothing to do with semantics.
The difference between ridiculing a historical figure and harassing a real one is that historical figures are indifferent to ridicule.
Here is the proposition:
Person A needs legal protection from Person B criticising Person C.
This is absolutely fucking nuts, even setting aside the fact that Person C is not affected by ridicule.
Shining_brow:
Q: what's your thoughts on groups like the Westboro Baptist Church going to the funerals of gay soldiers and protesting there? (ie, hate speech, etc??) After all, those people are dead - so surely the family shouldn't feel in any way affected by it....
Samsara:
First we have to address a difference that you still can't grasp.
Someone, somewhere, ridiculing your idol Vs Harassment (IN PERSON)
Ridiculing someone's idol from afar and harassing a person at their son's funeral are two very different things.
Scenario 1 (the Islamic situation)
Party A wants legal protection from Party B ridiculing Person C.
Stupidity. Mohammed is protected from ridicule in Islamic states (by violence and intimidation), and look how that turned out. The West is better than Islamic states because horrible people and horrible ideas are subject to scrutiny. During the Dark Ages, they weren't.
Also keep in mind that restrictions on speech won't stop Islamic people from imposing their beliefs on others. The Islamic people's "heightened susceptibility to offense" is one-way, utterly hypocritical, and not meant to benefit anyone else.
Scenario 2 (soldier's funeral)
Party A does not want Party B harassing them in person.
Seems a lot more reasonable. HOWEVER: There are laws governing harassment and protests. Those laws must draw a line somewhere between protecting speech and protecting personal safety and feelings. In the West, we err in favour of free speech, and the results speak for themselves.
Furthermore, did any of those family members of dead soldiers, who suffered actual harassment, in person, firebomb anything or kill anyone? NO. They're normal people.
Islamic Person: "Someone, somewhere, ridiculed my beliefs. Clearly we need to destroy things and kill people."
Normal Person: "Someone came to my son's funeral and shouted insults at our family. I am sad."
Regarding the Westboro Baptist Church
OF COURSE they should be allowed to publicise their opinions. They have, after all, made as much progress for Civil Rights as any liberal organisation. Simply by stating their retarded opinions loudly in public, they have brought national disgrace to homophobia. EXCELLENT WORK, Westboro Baptist Church.
And that's how free speech works. It allows beliefs to be exposed, discussed and called out for what they are. That's how public awareness develops.
If the Westboro Baptist Church wants to say "God is killing our soldiers because some people are gay" (what...) THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO. A great number of people are now unified in the denouncement of stupidity. The people most disadvantaged by the WBC's actions are American bigots.
Unfortunately, if someone (like... Mohammed, or any given Islamic preacher) says "Allah hates homosexuals" - we mustn't ridicule them because Islamic people are precious little darlings whose hateful beliefs need to be "respected".
Shining_brow:
First we have to address a difference that you still can't grasp.
Someone, somewhere, ridiculing your idol Vs Harassment (IN PERSON)
Ridiculing someone's idol from afar and harassing a person at their son's funeral are two very different things.
Firstly, you have to accept that I don't see the difference as as big as you would like it to be, because you don't want to accept that people in the real world don't see the difference as much as you want it to be!
You think it's fine to ridicule someone's important persons/idol, publicly, in the mass media, with no specific reasoning (in the case of the Charlie Hebdo, it was satirisations w the intended effect of insult - not a defined debate or discussion - just imagery that alludes to ... well, everything Islamic).
Similarly, you seem to think that people segregate off in their hearts and minds those things that are important to them... concepts such as 'my son', 'my daughter', 'my family', 'my people', 'my beliefs', 'my religion', 'my nation' etc... these emotional distinctions aren't as clear cut as you want them to be. So, attacking (using whatever words you want - ridicule, insult, harrass, etc etc - all have a similar feeling inside a person. Thus, attacking someone's family member at their funeral (Westboro) and attacking someone's religion (you and Islam) would feel fairly similar.
You obviously feel that it's ok to make such attacks. I do not. You feel that it's ok for a group to slur and insult and express their opinions publicly, and whenever and where-ever they like. I do not.
There are many 'freedoms' and 'rights' that we, as a society, do not have. We do not have complete freedom of religion (I cannot take various illicit drugs, nor engage in particular acts of ritual), I have my internet limited by what various governments deem unacceptable. In our country, we do not have unrestricted access to guns. I have to pay taxes, duties, etc, and across the planet, my movements are restricted due to where my passport was issued. Why, therefore, is it such a big deal to have my speech restricted to not be offensive, deliberately insulting, and ridiculing, to a person - based on their professed beliefs, preferences, race, ancestry, background, stations in life, etc etc?
I also think that how a person conducts their beliefs (ie, genital mutilation, stonings, etc) should also be as limited - to themselves! Ie, if you want to believe that genital mutilation is good in God's eyes, then you have the right to mutilate YOUR OWN genitals... but not to inflict such a thing on others. Similarly, just as I'm not allowed to ridicule your beliefs, you are not allowed to come and proselytize them or try to force your beliefs on me (or other people who aren't interested).
Let me put this another way - it would appear, from what you have been arguing, that a person should be able to enter into an area occupied by a group of similarly-minded people, yell any form of ridicule or insult to them, and expect to be able to walk out without any form of repercussion... and the laws should be on your side to do this. And, should anyone take offense, they would legally not be allowed to do anything to you (other than say words back) - any attempt to physically harm you would be unlawful, and there should be no protections or justifications within the law for 'incitement' or 'provocation'. Do I have the right of your thinking???
If so, then I once again say - it is better to curtail 'freedom of speech' in deference to enacting laws that try to control a person's emotions or mental state. Humans do not have the strength of character for that yet!
Samsara:
"It would appear, from what you have been arguing, that a person should be able to enter into an area occupied by a group of similarly-minded people, yell any form of ridicule or insult to them..."
No, I don't think that.
I think satirizing a belief system (or non-belief system) is OK. I don't think yelling in someone's face is OK. The law generally agrees with me on this point. There is obviously some grey area regarding the latter, but only people with extreme religious views tend to yell in people's faces anyway (once again, note the hypocrisy).
I appreciate that I come from a much better culture than Islamic or Chinese people, because my culture encourages opinions and debate, and theirs, suppression.
The whole 'free speech' issue is a very nebulous area.
Free to say what?
exactly what you want all the time, regardless of consequences?
in an ideal world, people are aware of their responsibilities because both rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand.
in the real world, there are many individuals with chips on their shoulders looking for a fight, and all it takes is a careless look or a word to get a punch in the face or worse: "He/she was asking for it is a common 'excuse.'"
At the other extreme there are those who advocate 'PCness' where you can't make any comment, even to make a legitimate point about the absurdity of something.
welcome to the 'harmonious society' where nothing can even be discussed for fear of offending or making someone look bad (you can substitute 'lose face' here if you like)
there is no easy answer to this issue, because you are likely to offend someone.
I often "censor" myself ... oh bhgal, that is stupid, don't say that online.....but I do just let it go sometimes.....and often, when I do let it go... it just feels good... there, done.... now don't worry about it....
not just this site.. a few sites... sometimes I just say some BS that sometimes makes absolutely no sense, but it is what is on my mind at the time... yes I have been banned from a few sites, "censored" for a a while..
I am not a "radical" .... more like a "dreamer".... ( it is sort of like the Chinese Dream). a dream of every body getting along.. a dream of world happiness, and a dream of everybody agreeing with me.. I want to be the KING of the world... totalitarian big shot.. I know what is best for you!!
So you go ahead and speak freely, I will monitor your speech and react appropriately.
I have no chip on my shoulder, and I don't expect I will be taking a swing at you or anybody......I will send my Pied Piper droves to your doorstep and hopefully convince you to agree with me. if not.. well, we'll see what happens.
today, my true love and belief is that our saviour, the POPE, lands safely in Manila..
my true despise is the Canadian dollar, down 14-15% this year.. what the F**ck
