Charlie Hebdo

[Daktoria]

Freedom of speech isn't absolute. It's subject to other freedoms as well.

You're not entitled to exercise it to be duressing, intimidating, harassing, negligent, or provocative. To exercise freedom of speech, you need to have your dignity upheld. If you speak in an undignified manner, then you're a hypocrite.

That said, Islam is an extremist religion and there are Muslim extremists on top of that.

The proper way to criticize Islam is to simply talk about those extremes, not to make fun of them.

[Daktoria]

Anyway, the real issue at stake has very little to do with freedom of speech.

It has to do with feminists who are confusing Islam with other religions. That's why the pope is getting so much attention here.

Islam might be extremist, but it has decent values as well. The real reason it was made fun of here wasn't for its extremism, but for its decent values.

The problem is feminists don't believe in decent values. They believe in chaos. The entire point is to make fun of those who believe in decency, and then claim they're tyrants for expecting others to control themselves...

...which is nonsense, but that's the whole point feminists seek to make. They intend on being nonsensical, and want to force their nonsense onto others while telling the sensible to deal with it. After that, they want to provoke others into calling them stupid, and then claim those who call them stupid are hypocrites by calling them stupid back.

The problem is feminists aren't acknowledging the difference of relationships between calling stupid people stupid versus calling smart people stupid. Calling someone stupid, "stupid" is the truth. Calling someone smart, "stupid" is a lie...

...but again, that's the whole point. Feminists want the right to lie.

[HexHammer]

..sigh!! ..retarded topic!!!

If you humiliate people by invading their country, humiliate them further with Abu Gharib, then Guantanamo, then bomb the fuck out of everything down there with 40k - 400k civilian casualties in this "liberation" (oil) war, then ofc people get pissy, then the last straw is to humiliate the prophet that they hold dear, then ofc the retards gets it.

Don't fucking put ur stupid hand in the hornet's nest, then it's ur own fault!

[uwot]

I think the subtlety has escaped you, HexHammer. The prime minister of the UK said the following:

“We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it’s within the law. That is what we should defend.”

The topic, at least as I set it out is:

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

Why do you consider that retarded?

[HexHammer]

I think the subtlety has escaped you, HexHammer. The prime minister of the UK said the following:

“We have to accept that newspapers, magazines, can publish things that are offensive to some, as long as it’s within the law. That is what we should defend.”

The topic, at least as I set it out is:

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

Why do you consider that retarded?

Is the law always right? Just because it's the law, doesn't always mean we should follow it, you would have been an excellent nazi, it's just the law to put people in the gas chambers.

[surreptitious57]

The only restriction on freedom of speech is the one you impose on your self. For beyond that you should be free to say what ever you want
and regardless of any legal or social consequences either. Speech is simply the verbalisation of thought and if one cannot say what they are
thinking then one does not live in a truly free society. The fear of not being able to say what you think because of how it may be perceived
is in point of fact a greater threat to a free society than being able to say what ever you want and invoking as much offence when doing so

[HexHammer]

The only restriction on freedom of speech is the one you impose on your self. For beyond that you should be free to say what ever you want
and regardless of any legal or social consequences either. Speech is simply the verbalisation of thought and if one cannot say what they are
thinking then one does not live in a truly free society. The fear of not being able to say what you think because of how it may be perceived
is in point of fact a greater threat to a free society than being able to say what ever you want and invoking as much offence when doing so

You can't have a bunch of radical people inciting to mass murder, that is bad freedom of speech.

You can't have people giving a damn about contracts safeguarding company secrets, or secrets of states.

People slandering each other, giving a bad reputation, specially in business terms is very bad and very illegal.


[Edited by iMod]

[uwot]

Is the law always right? Just because it's the law, doesn't always mean we should follow it...

What do you think I have said that compels you to say such a thing?

...you would have been an excellent nazi, it's just the law to put people in the gas chambers.

Bit harsh, HexHammer. You don't appear to appreciate that I am exercising my hard won democratic right to challenge what the elected leader of a sovereign state has argued. As it happens, there are legal restrictions on what you can say publicly in the UK, but Mr Cameron thinks we have a right to cause offence that should be protected. Since this is a 'right' you chose to exercise, is your position that people should only do it anonymously, since doing so openly exposes them to the risk of violence?

[Wyman]

The topic, at least as I set it out is:

uwot wrote:
No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

The boring answer is that we should all refrain from such offensive speech in our lives and teach our children tolerance and respect; however, when it comes to free speech law, we ere on the side of the right to speak offensively. We cast a wide net because over history, the right to free speech has been one of the most important to democratic society. The first thing tyrannical regimes do is limit speech.

Without forceful limits (constitutional prohibitions for instance) on the government's ability to prohibit speech, the 'majority' will define what is racist and what is sexist and the line will shift ever further to their advantage as the years go by. I don't like the 'slippery slope' argument, as it's overused, but in the case of such fundamental rights, it is prudent to set firm limits.

I suppose the counter argument is that the majority can use offensive speech itself to add to the plight of minority interests and that is really what needs to be limited. Feminists and 'critical' studies folks correctly point out that the status quo in most societies favors the majority to the detriment of minority groups and is therefore fundamentally unfair. Sexist and racist jokes and other speech are part of that harmful status quo and need to be quelled. My answer is, if you think the status quo is bad, wait until you give the majority the right to legislate 'offensive' parts out. The definition of 'offensive' will expand and shift according to political power as will enforcement. And people will still tell racist and sexist jokes.

[HexHammer]

Is the law always right? Just because it's the law, doesn't always mean we should follow it...

What do you think I have said that compels you to say such a thing?

...you would have been an excellent nazi, it's just the law to put people in the gas chambers.

Bit harsh, HexHammer. You don't appear to appreciate that I am exercising my hard won democratic right to challenge what the elected leader of a sovereign state has argued. As it happens, there are legal restrictions on what you can say publicly in the UK, but Mr Cameron thinks we have a right to cause offence that should be protected. Since this is a 'right' you chose to exercise, is your position that people should only do it anonymously, since doing so openly exposes them to the risk of violence?

Exactly where do I say we should do it anonymously?

What I've been saying that they had it coming, if you spit some man in the face and his entire family too, without any reason, or just because his neighbor are terrorists, then you should expect eventually to get u'r ass kicked.

What I'm really saying, is just keep u'r mouth shut, don't go insult people with sweeping statements, with those drawings you hit ALL Muslims, not only the radical and extremists.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14632&p=187523&view=show#p187523

No sane person can excuse what happened to the staff at Charlie Hebdo, but without airbrushing that, who would defend the right to publish racist or sexist jokes?

It's very easy to defend, when you invade Iraq in a highly illegal war, then you piss people off, when you bomb left and right indiscriminately and kill 40k - 400k then you piss people even more, when you then humiliate them with Abu Gharib and Guantanamo then they get furious and swear revenge, those cartoonists wasn't the brightest of people, when they piss off people who are already in the first place filled with hatred and rage against the westerners.

[Melchior]

.



Organizations & individuals should continue to have the right to publish racist or sexist jokes.

It's not in good taste but the freedom needs to exist.



.

Goddamn queers make me sick!

[duszek]

What could be the advantage of allowing a total freedom of speech (including racist and sexist statements) ?

Possibly that you know who you are dealing with and don´t waste your time with this person.

Unless you are a social worker (or a psychiatrist) and try to "convert" him to more reasonable views.
Out of professional ambition and curiosity.

[surreptitious57]

bad freedom of speech

Whether freedom of speech is good or bad is neither here nor there as such notions are entirely subjective. What is not though is the
principle that in a free society everyone should have the same degree of freedom when it comes to self expression. This freedom also
extends to speech which is illegal. And the reason for that is because laws are restrictions which would not exist if they were not going
to be broken. So by virtue of existing in the first place they will be breached. And so in a free society [ indeed any society ] one still has
the freedom to break the law if one so chooses. The only difference being that if they do then they shall have to suffer the consequences

[Lev Muishkin]

The proper way to criticize Islam is to simply talk about those extremes, not to make fun of them.

The point about free speech is that people express themselves in the way they find best.
You can say more about a situation with a simple image and caption than a thousand wise words.
Comedy is not improper.

[duszek]

bad freedom of speech

Whether freedom of speech is good or bad is neither here nor there as such notions are entirely subjective. What is not though is the
principle that in a free society everyone should have the same degree of freedom when it comes to self expression. This freedom also
extends to speech which is illegal. And the reason for that is because laws are restrictions which would not exist if they were not going
to be broken. So by virtue of existing in the first place they will be breached. And so in a free society [ indeed any society ] one still has
the freedom to break the law if one so chooses. The only difference being that if they do then they shall have to suffer the consequences

I am a little confused.

So in countries like Saudi Arabia there is freedom of speech, but if you use it to in a way that the government considers an insult to islam then you have to suffer consequences ?

A blogger suffering such consequences at present would probably not call it "freedom of speech".