Let me get this straight Captain.....the U.S government has no links with the movie but you feel proud of the Freedom to Offend? Whether people are getting offended for the right or the wrong reason, surely the government has an obligation to act on the sentiment of a vast number of its own citizens and for the social cohesion of its own society, if nothing else.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids the government from curtailing freedom of press, speech or religion. The government is not--and CANNOT be--in the business of preventing a citizen from thinking in a particular manner or saying something, even if that something is deemed offensive by someone else in some part of the world. That, of course, does not mean that the American public or the government condones 'offensive' speech. Many Americans who have come to hear of this "movie" have been dismayed or disgusted. And let’s not forget that President Obama and others in the US administration have condemned it. Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, for example, called it "hateful and offensive.” And Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, condemned in as "reprehensible and disgusting.”
The conclusions that can be drawn from this thread:
The West obviously is not a monolith, with different countries having different laws and legislation prescribing or conscribing freedom of speech.
The first amendment to the US Constitution forbids the government from, among other things, abridging freedom of speech.
Among Western nations, Britain, however, has some of the most rigorous limits on speech, including libel, inflammatory or threatening speech or behavior, and incitement to violence.
There is also a clear difference between claiming, for example, that “XYZ is bad/evil/stupid” and declaring that “XYZ should die and go to hell.” The latter is not just offensive, but also threatening and instigative of violence. Under British law, such a speech can be reprimanded and the person who makes it taken to court.
In a similar vein, the drunk woman who was videotaped racially abusing her fellow passengers on a train in London was also sentenced and sent to jail for her “loud, foul-mouthed and aggressive” speech. Of the two individuals who appeared in court, saying that they felt “victimized” because of her speech, one was of Pakistani descent. The woman herself later expressed remorse, claiming that she felt “deeply ashamed” at what she did but was found guilty and jailed nonetheless.
Perhaps chachi Clinton could explain why her fancy speech about internet/press freedom does not apply to Wikileaks.
"When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need to protect people who exercise their rights online."
Lol and then there's Bradley Manning facing capital punishment. If he and Julian Assange violated the Espionage Act, so did the New York Times, The Guardian, and 3 other major newspapers from around the world. The obtained, distributed and communicated classified documents. So do the newspapers' owners/editors/journalists etc deserve the death penalty or lengthy jail sentences too?
It is great you want a level playing field. Important to remember we should practice this in our daily interactions with others of various faiths and backgrounds.
Umm the 5 newspapers did not just innocently report the leaked cables story, they partnered up with Wikileaks, they obtained those documents after being granted early access and they ALL simultaneously published the *whole *cables (the first 200 or so). So if you're going to charge Wikileaks, charge the newspapers too for the Espionage Act criminalizes obtaining and communicating classified government info and it doesn't matter what your source is, whether you obtained it from Manning or Wikileaks or whoever else. Unless you're making your own little amendment and telling me the newspapers can't be charged because they obtained it from Assange not Manning.
Forget the Wikileaks business, how was the Espionage Act not violated when The New York Times previously exposed the President's warrantless surveillance program?
You are grasping for straws here. I have said it before and I will say it again - our views are colored by our backgrounds and perspectives. IMO you are not making an apples to apples comparison.
I don't see any statement from you condemning the protests.
Anyway - I just don't get why people would draw false equivalency just to support folks of their background. Wrong is wrong. Making circular arguments by stating one or two cases from the west, getting facts wrong, willfully ( or not) mixing up UK and US laws to prove western freedom of press is equally bad shows an inbuilt reluctance to question/criticize ones own. That stance may be popular in some avenues - but does no service to seeking the truth and finding a solution to barbaric mobs and their evil leaders.
Those who dont believe in freedom of speech just SHUT UP. just listen to what i say and dont talk.
You have right to remain silent for rest of your life.
:ASA:
I don't see any statement from you condemning the protests.
And that must mean I condone them? Are you seriously making conclusions about people's perspectives based on nothing? I haven't made any statement about the bomb blasts in Karachi either so what are you going to conclude from that?
Where did I make a comparison, I simply said should the newspapers be charged too if Wikileaks is charged and both Ghost and Merc said no so we're on the same page. Itni si baat hai aap pata nahin kahan se kahan le jate ho.
And that must mean I condone them? Are you seriously making conclusions about people's perspectives based on nothing? I haven't made any statement about the bomb blasts in Karachi either so what are you going to conclude from that?
Where did I make a comparison, I simply said should the newspapers be charged too if Wikileaks is charged and both Ghost and Merc said no so we're on the same page. Itni si baat hai aap pata nahin kahan se kahan le jate ho.
Deleting my response and adding below
You are correct. You have made interesting argument re newspapers. I withdraw my criticism which now almost appears to be ad hominem.
Was logging back on to state this but Muq caught me before I could post this.
No it does not mean you condoned them. But coming out against them would be refreshing, is all.
Southie Uncle
before condemning Muslims who are doing protest, one should know the Islam teachings and importance of respect of the Prophet as per Quran. As per Quran, your faith is incomplete until you consider Prophet above your parents and family.
If someone abuse our families, what would be our reaction?
If someone abuse our families, what would be our reaction?
I would still not go out on the streets, destroy my own property (rather than that of the offender), behave like an idiot or wish death and hell to people who had nothing to do with that abuse.
I would still not go out on the streets, destroy my own property (rather than that of the offender), behave like an idiot or wish death and hell to people who had nothing to do with that abuse.
Thats right. I also don't agree with violent protest. But condemning those who want to protest peacefully is beyond my understanding.
Thats right. I also don't agree with violent protest. But condemning those who want to protest peacefully is beyond my understanding.
But even that "peaceful" protest should be directed at the person who is responsible for it. You can't make the whole Western world responsible for the actions of one dumbass.
Thats right. I also don't agree with violent protest. But condemning those who want to protest peacefully is beyond my understanding.
I don't condemn their protest, I just think the cause would be better served by ignoring the bigots. The more you protest the more they offend. The whole thing is counter productive and childish. Not every provocation is worthy of a response. And if it's the sanctity and the good name of the prophet that is your primary concern, then ignoring the taunts and baring with the bigotry will impress the non believers far more then hordes of protestors either violent or otherwise. Of all aspects of the prophets life, we may not remember the details of every one of his battles, but we all know of his stoicism in the face of hostility during the earlier years in Mecca, when he choose to ignore rather then engage those who attacked or insulted him.
before condemning Muslims who are doing protest, one should know the Islam teachings and importance of respect of the Prophet as per Quran. As per Quran, your faith is incomplete until you consider Prophet above your parents and family.
If someone abuse our families, what would be our reaction?
Dear Muqawee
As always you put it so well. The video is reprehensible. I was actually logging back on to indicate Huma post did make sense. Let me do that :)
But even that "peaceful" protest should be directed at the person who is responsible for it. You can't make the whole Western world responsible for the actions of one dumbass.
I'm sorry but its not about one person. Its about social values of western world, who keep barking dogs unattended to spew the venom on the name of Freedom of Speech at the cost of hurting one of the biggest religious community. Its the Western countries who give refuge to criminals causing unrest all over the world.
The Constitution of the United States explicitly forbids the government from curtailing freedom of press, speech or religion. The government is not--and CANNOT be--in the business of preventing a citizen from thinking in a particular manner or saying something, even if that something is deemed offensive by someone else in some part of the world. That, of course, does not mean that the American public or the government condones 'offensive' speech. Many Americans who have come to hear of this "movie" have been dismayed or disgusted. And let’s not forget that President Obama and others in the US administration have condemned it. Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, for example, called it "hateful and offensive.” And Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, condemned in as "reprehensible and disgusting.”
What is disgusting is that people can not differentiate between 'thinking, saying' and actually going on insulting by making a cartoon/video.
What is disgusting is that people can not differentiate between 'thinking, saying' and actually going on insulting by making a cartoon/video.
There are plenty of people out there making irreverent cartoons and videos that someone else may find offensive or insulting. Mostly people do not give a fig to them. And in a free society, you cannot really police what someone else is doing unless their words or actions threaten someone else. You cannot impose your sensibilities and your standards on everyone else. Even if you did, there will likely always be some crazy person out there who will go against the stream and may make you feel insulted.
surely the government has an obligation to act on the sentiment of a vast number of its own citizens and for the social cohesion of its own society, if nothing else.
Incorrect.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it forbids the government to act against non threatening speech be it offensive to the few or to the many.
There are plenty of people out there making irreverent cartoons and videos that someone else may find offensive or insulting. Mostly people do not give a fig to them. And in a free society, you cannot really police what someone else is doing unless their words or actions threaten someone else. You cannot impose your sensibilities and your standards on everyone else. Even if you did, there will likely always be some crazy person out there who will go against the stream and may make you feel insulted.
We are not talking about 2 or 5 people finding it offensive, just add a "billion" to the "2+" then you have a problem.