Free speech vs. safety

[The Ex-Mormon]

A film was produced. Offending the Islam with the aim and provoking Islamists to acts of violence.
The consequence: Many dead bodies; Hate for America, violence of Muslims against Coptic Christians in Egypt.
What would be if the free speech had limits in the USA? If e.g. the makers of this "film" were sentenced to severe imprisonments? Or Islamic preachers of hate provided , if they are not American citizens. are expelled? The inner safety, the inner social peace are not more important, than the right of free speech? At least in this case?

[McCulloch]

Don't blame the victim. People do not get hurt because they produced a film critical of Islam. They get hurt because some Islamists believe that they are justified expressing their disagreement with violence. Theo van Gogh, for example, was not assassinated because he criticized Muslim treatment of women, but because some fanatic would rather kill than debate.

[The Ex-Mormon]

Don't blame the victim. People do not get hurt because they produced a film critical of Islam. They get hurt because some Islamists believe that they are justified expressing their disagreement with violence. Theo van Gogh, for example, was not assassinated because he criticized Muslim treatment of women, but because some fanatic would rather kill than debate.

The first rule of a society is; that peace shall be. Terry Jones and this Coptic Christian who produced the film wanted only one thing: disturbing the peace. People died because of the film. People were physically and spiritually maltreated because of this film.
Imagine the situation the other way round once:
Islamists make a reviling video against Christians or Jews. By spreading such lies that Christians feel forced; for the defense of their faith; reaching for the weapon. Killing people, storming buildings. Embassies of Islamic countries bombard.
Would this be right? Would this be permitted because of the right to an free speech?
Do you know the WBC of Fred Phelps? Do you know what they do on the cemeteries if pleased soldiers are buried? This interupted parish priest would be in prison in Switzerland already. Because his right ends there where the right of the family members starts.
And it just the same is with this reviling video.

[Darias]

A film was produced. Offending the Islam with the aim and provoking Islamists to acts of violence.
The consequence: Many dead bodies; Hate for America, violence of Muslims against Coptic Christians in Egypt.
What would be if the free speech had limits in the USA? If e.g. the makers of this "film" were sentenced to severe imprisonments? Or Islamic preachers of hate provided , if they are not American citizens. are expelled? The inner safety, the inner social peace are not more important, than the right of free speech? At least in this case?

First, the film produced was not a call to violence. In cases where people shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or where violence and murder is preached -- this is the only place where free-speech crosses the line.

The producer may have wanted to provoke a reaction, in an effort to prove his point that "Muslims aren't innocent." But he did not tell Americans to go and kill Muslims, he simply made a grotesque mockery of Islamic religion.

The murders resulting from the reaction to hearing about this video are solely on the heads of those who did the killing. Any clerics or others who brought the video to light, or claimed that it was the most popular video in America, or suggested violence are more guilty of what happened than the producer.

The hatred for Americans and the West was preexisting, based mostly if not entirely on American foreign policy in the region since the 20th century. This video was just the tipping point; it did not create the hatred. This video was also used to terrorists advantage who may have even planned the attacks to fall on the anniversary of 9/11.



All this aside, Free Speech is sacrosanct. If laws are going to be created limiting free speech, who gets to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" free speech? Who is going to end up being locked up because of the new laws?

The fact is if you put all that power into the hands of a government, or leave it up to the majority -- what you end up with is the result of mob rule. If a majority of people think your views are disgusting, you lose your rights. If the government disapproves of your language, you lose your rights.

An unwavering value of America is free speech above all. This is because it protects the rights of a minority, and to a greater point, the right of individuals to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment.

In Germany, you can get arrested for denying the Holocaust (Also take into consideration that German schools do not teach on the period of the Holocaust). Now as horrible of a reality as the Holocaust was, if you have to arrest people for questioning it, especially if your country doesn't inform people about it, what good does that do. If I threaten to arrest you for denying reality, then people will begin to question reality. You shouldn't have to defend the truth in this manner, as truth is self-evident.

We have racists in the United States who retain their right to hate speech. They are not arrested for the dumb stuff that they say because they are simply ignorant. As long as they don't incite to riot, or call for murder of people, they can say whatever they want.

If you live in a police state that cracks down on all who deny the government's version of truth, then you live in Iran or North Korea.

Now the tradeoff for letting stupid and ignorant people talk is that I get to talk too. Everyone has the same rights and the government isn't determining who has them and who doesn't, and the majority isn't dictating rights to the minority.

Imagine that if in America free speech rights were voted on. Then you would have a majority of people outlawing the teaching of Evolution in schools, or the freedom to talk about gay rights, etc. This phenomenon is called the tyranny of the majority.

This is why free speech is so important. Any law that prohibits it is an affront to liberty and humanity.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[The Ex-Mormon]

You said:

The producer may have wanted to provoke a reaction, in an effort to prove his point that "Muslims aren't innocent." But he did not tell Americans to go and kill Muslims, he simply made a grotesque mockery of Islamic religion.

I have looked at some parts of the film at YouTube by now. If the person whom you love as your faith founder; see him as a human pig as a sex-obsessed monster and as perverted child abuser, you also would freak out. E.g. Mohammed married Ayscha, an at that time a 9-year-old girl. According to today's scales this would be forbidden; permitted according to scales then. One should consider this if one represents somebody as a child abuser. Moreover, the Koran knows two rules, which was used by the makers of the film consciously:

Doing or mocking the Islam contemptuously; is a crime.
It is also a crime to represent pictorially, to caricature primarily Mohammed. Both crimes are punished with the death in some countries.

All this aside, Free Speech is sacrosanct. If laws are going to be created limiting free speech, who gets to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" free speech? Who is going to end up being locked up because of the new laws?

If I understand you correctly, then neo-Nazis may further call for the hate for Jews, homosexuals and the Islam in the USA. And also performing (verbal) violence. And then you are surprised that synagogues burn, Jews, homosexuals and Muslims killed, spit in their faces and or beat up. How naive are you?
Everything has his cause!
And these preachers of hate and hate videos first make the violence possible in the street. Provocation and counter-provocation and the spiral of the force always goes on. And this must be held back! To keep peace in the country and to the retention of the order.

The fact is if you put all that power into the hands of a government, or leave it up to the majority -- what you end up with is the result of mob rule. If a majority of people think your views are disgusting, you lose your rights. If the government disapproves of your language, you lose your rights.

An unwavering value of America is free speech above all. This is because it protects the rights of a minority, and to a greater point, the right of individuals to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment.

I love a sentence from the first Spiderman film: ";Also big responsibility comes with great power"!
And a good government, like that one of Switzerland where I live, always will weigh up.
Once again: The right to a free speech has there her limits where the rights of others shall be limited.
And, if a preacher of hate or a hate video limits or threatens the rights of citizens, then there is only a solution: The video has to be removed, the preacher of hate is sentenced or had to leave the country.

We have racists in the United States who retain their right to hate speech. They are not arrested for the dumb stuff that they say because they are simply ignorant. As long as they don't incite to riot, or call for murder of people, they can say whatever they want.

And the problem exactly is there!
These idiots, identical whether with or preach her hate without a religious mask. There will always be other idiots who follow these hate words and would kill people.
There then still are such idiots like Fred Phelps and his church gang. They hurt the feelings of deceased members and the whole American people. They preach hate against the USA, hate for homosexual, hate for Jews. And the Supreme Court also has granted this to them. A judgement which I absolutely cannot understand.

If you live in a police state that cracks down on all who deny the government's version of truth, then you live in Iran or North Korea.

They are not only black or white. They are also a lot of shade tones.

Imagine that if in America free speech rights were voted on. Then you would have a majority of people outlawing the teaching of Evolution in schools, or the freedom to talk about gay rights, etc. This phenomenon is called the tyranny of the majority.

This has happened in the USA anyway already for a long time! Think of Proposition 8 in California. The supreme court of this state declared a marriage ban as unconstitutional for homosexuals. The marriage was opened for homosexuals. Christians immediately came and demanded a referendum. And the majority decided to refuse her homosexuals on marriage properly. Also because these Christians had incited the population with lies.

BTW: Ben Franklin was for a seperation of church and state. Many Christians would refused this.

[Darias]

The producer may have wanted to provoke a reaction, in an effort to prove his point that "Muslims aren't innocent." But he did not tell Americans to go and kill Muslims, he simply made a grotesque mockery of Islamic religion.

I have looked at some parts of the film at YouTube by now. If the person whom you love as your faith founder; see him as a human pig as a sex-obsessed monster and as perverted child abuser, you also would freak out. E.g. Mohammed married Ayscha, an at that time a 9-year-old girl. According to today's scales this would be forbidden; permitted according to scales then. One should consider this if one represents somebody as a child abuser. Moreover, the Koran knows two rules, which was used by the makers of the film consciously:

Doing or mocking the Islam contemptuously; is a crime.
It is also a crime to represent pictorially, to caricature primarily Mohammed. Both crimes are punished with the death in some countries.

I could imagine why someone, having never been exposed to views that challenge their religion, would be enraged by a film that most Americans would ignore.

I also understand that there are blasphemy laws in certain Muslim countries.

I, however, am happy that America protects free speech to a greater degree than that of Europe and the Muslim world, because we don't put people in jail for speech that offends people of faith.

Imagine if there were Politically Correct laws in America that made it illegal to mock, slander, or even question religion. Countless people would simply be hauled off to jail -- and since America is largely populated by Christian believers, us non-believers would all be imprisoned.

But using your logic, in order for the police-state to keep the peace, anyone using offensive or potentially offensive words against or in regards to a religious belief that someone else believes, must be locked away (in the name of "order" and the "greater good" of course).

All this aside, Free Speech is sacrosanct. If laws are going to be created limiting free speech, who gets to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" free speech? Who is going to end up being locked up because of the new laws?

If I understand you correctly, then neo-Nazis may further call for the hate for Jews, homosexuals and the Islam in the USA. And also performing (verbal) violence. And then you are surprised that synagogues burn, Jews, homosexuals and Muslims killed, spit in their faces and or beat up. How naive are you?
Everything has his cause!
And these preachers of hate and hate videos first make the violence possible in the street. Provocation and counter-provocation and the spiral of the force always goes on. And this must be held back! To keep peace in the country and to the retention of the order.

Yes, Neo-Nazis can say racist things, so long as they don't call for violence and killing. We can protest the government and mock our political leaders. Creationists can deny Evolution, and others can deny global warming.

While it is true that their message can have some influence, arresting them in mass would suggest a truth to their message, even validate it in some way. This would encourage more to join them. Surely the truth would not need to be protected by arresting those who question it.

And yes, we have laws that crack down on violence. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose, and can go no further. But we have no laws forbidding offense.



Shall we then grant such power to the state to arrest these people? In the name of scientific progress, shall we herd up all the Creationists and Global Warming Deniers and throw them in concentration camps?

In order to cure racism, shall we arrest all racists and prove to them that they are wrong by locking them up?

In order to ensure political tranquility, shall we lock up political activists, ban protests and outlaw criticism of the dear leader?

Or perhaps to curtail child bulling and gay bullying we should arrest kids (bullies) and their parents for failure to instill proper values.

Just how much power are you willing to grant your beloved benevolent state? How can you say, yes arrest those racists for speaking their minds, but don't arrest those who question our president and the actions of our government?

When you set up a double standard for free speech, it no longer is free. Then you have to leave it up to mob rule or the government to decide what is decent and proper in society -- and who can or cannot speak, and what is forbidden.

Do you really want to live in that type of Orwellian world?

The fact is if you put all that power into the hands of a government, or leave it up to the majority -- what you end up with is the result of mob rule. If a majority of people think your views are disgusting, you lose your rights. If the government disapproves of your language, you lose your rights.

An unwavering value of America is free speech above all. This is because it protects the rights of a minority, and to a greater point, the right of individuals to speak their mind without fear of imprisonment.

I love a sentence from the first Spiderman film: ";Also big responsibility comes with great power"!
And a good government, like that one of Switzerland where I live, always will weigh up.
Once again: The right to a free speech has there her limits where the rights of others shall be limited.
And, if a preacher of hate or a hate video limits or threatens the rights of citizens, then there is only a solution: The video has to be removed, the preacher of hate is sentenced or had to leave the country.

I think it is the most tragic of all mistakes to trust government. The idea of "good government" is ridiculous to me. There is no limit to the power and corruption a government can have; a nation of sheep breed a government of wolves.

Your government leaves religious freedom up to a tyranny of the majority. You don't have 1st amendment rights like we do, and so this happens on a national scale, banning of Islamic Minarets on buildings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/world ... .html?_r=0

One would think this "benevolent" government action would incite retaliation and resentment. But for some reason, you trust your government to do the right thing. How can you explain this?

Maybe they thought that the appearance of mosques would encourage religious conversions somehow, and then that would be "bad for the security of the state."

Hate speech is not the same as incitement to violence. Hate speech comes in many forms, whether people talk about religion, race, women, men, or governments.

If a political activist encourages a demonstration against a government over a bad law, and protestors end up getting hurt or killed by riot police while demonstrating -- does the government have the right to arrest the political activist or ban him from the country?

I don't see this as any different than a preacher speaking ill about Jews and being arrested for it.

Again, the morality of their cause is irrelevant to the principle of free speech itself. If you decide to limit free speech just a little, it sets a precedent for more and more limits to free speech. Anything could be censored for its potential to offend. Music, books, anything.

We have racists in the United States who retain their right to hate speech. They are not arrested for the dumb stuff that they say because they are simply ignorant. As long as they don't incite to riot, or call for murder of people, they can say whatever they want.

And the problem exactly is there!
These idiots, identical whether with or preach her hate without a religious mask. There will always be other idiots who follow these hate words and would kill people.
There then still are such idiots like Fred Phelps and his church gang. They hurt the feelings of deceased members and the whole American people. They preach hate against the USA, hate for homosexual, hate for Jews. And the Supreme Court also has granted this to them. A judgement which I absolutely cannot understand.

No one hates Fred Phelps more than me, but I'm certainly not going to have him killed or arrested for being a _____ dumb___ idiot. The Supreme Court granted them the rights to speak hate far away enough from the funerals being held. Any closer would be inciting violence and trespassing.

While they may have some influence on some infinitesimal scale, arresting them and locking them up would only spark a wave of people to join in with them. We would have massive anti-gay protests everywhere. Homophobia would skyrocket through the roof.

And also Fred Phelps is completely against violence. They don't teach violence because this is a sin.

But you know what might encourage an idiot to go out and kill someone? Violent video games -- so lets go ahead and ban those.

And while we're at it, lets outlaw guns so law abiding citizens cannot purchase them for their defense and criminals will be able to obtain them illegally as they always have.

And lets ban bumper-stickers cause those can be offensive and might cause someone to go into a rage and cause violence.

Lets also ban television and the radio because sometimes schizophrenics think that what they hear and see is a message being brought directly to them.

Pretty soon we'll be a decent society -- no offensive speech,
no entertainment that could be of bad influence, no television, and no radio, and the all powerful benevolent state will have all the guns. Brilliant. Sounds like progress to me.

If you live in a police state that cracks down on all who deny the government's version of truth, then you live in Iran or North Korea.

They are not only black or white. They are also a lot of shade tones.

Oh so you don't want a government that's too controlling, maybe a North Korea Lite?

The problem is, government doesn't differentiate between "good guys" and their beliefs and "bad guys" and their beliefs. When you give government enough control to take away SOME rights to speech, you set the precedent that it is okay to chip away at liberties, so long as you do it slowly, so no one will notice -- except for when it's too late and you live in a Nanny State.

If you let government ban semi-automatic weapons, there's nothing that can stop them from banning hand guns.... and then knives. There is no line a government cannot cross if people let it.

Look at the difference between the US and UK. If someone invades your home in the UK, you have to yell at them to leave, and if they don't you have to warn them that you are getting a weapon (which can't be a gun because guns are outlawed) ... and if they don't leave you have to flee your home. And the police who eventually show up are also unarmed. The intruder might have a weapon he got from the black market.

In the US, if an intruder sets foot into your house you can blow their head off and not go to jail or face charges. This is because your life was at stake and your safety was compromised.

In the US we have a freer and safer society, and in the UK you have a defenseless, government controlled one.

This is why you saw the riots in 2011. Mobs of people burning and looting and no guns (lethal or non lethal) and no right to defend your life or property. Chaos everywhere. State police and law abiding citizens alike overwhelmed and unarmed.

If you have Liberty on one end of the spectrum and Autocracy on the other end, I'll pick the Liberty end of the spectrum every time. I don't want any autocracy at all, you can have your 50 shades of grey, along with all the laws and lack of liberties that come with that.

Imagine that if in America free speech rights were voted on. Then you would have a majority of people outlawing the teaching of Evolution in schools, or the freedom to talk about gay rights, etc. This phenomenon is called the tyranny of the majority.

This has happened in the USA anyway already for a long time! Think of Proposition 8 in California. The supreme court of this state declared a marriage ban as unconstitutional for homosexuals. The marriage was opened for homosexuals. Christians immediately came and demanded a referendum. And the majority decided to refuse her homosexuals on marriage properly. Also because these Christians had incited the population with lies.

BTW: Ben Franklin was for a seperation of church and state. Many Christians would refused this.

There were no free speech rights at stake or any violated with Prop 8. However, yes there was an exercise of the tyranny of the majority. At least in America we have many states, so national policies will not oppress all Americans everywhere.

I never said my government was the best; I understand it infringes on many rights as well.

I believe in equal rights for everyone, and I think government should stay out of defining marriage. If marriage was a private contract between persons and if those contracts were recognized on the state level -- and those contracts afforded all the rights that traditional marriage does today, then everyone would be happy. The definition of marriage debate wouldn't exist, and gays would have equal rights with straights.

[The Ex-Mormon]

@Darias,

My English is not good enough to respond to all your posts. I would, however, like to put three questions for you:

First question: If one in the USA living preacher of hate, identical of which religion or political orientation, brings the life and the health of American citizens in danger; is not it then an act of the terror against the USA? Also if it is not done with bombs and guns but "only" with words?

Second question: If a free speech is so important; why this is, then allowed be able to American citizens be insulted by Americans; on the other hand, why can without these having the right to defend himself? In the Swiss law there is a law being able to bring somebody who tells untrue lies about myself in front of a court.

Third question: Why is a hate speech not considered an act of violence or terrorism; the cut of a beard or hair off already (as in the case of the Amish which recently went through the press)? Why a talk led with hate is not punishable and no hate crime but cut a beard already?

These three questions show me that American laws must be checked urgently. Whether they are still equal to the temporal requirements. Whether with them right is spoken or right prevented. Whether these laws are not perpetrator protection as victim protection sooner. Think about it once.

[Divine Insight]

The first rule of a society is; that peace shall be. Terry Jones and this Coptic Christian who produced the film wanted only one thing: disturbing the peace. People died because of the film. People were physically and spiritually maltreated because of this film.

You don't know that their intent was to incite violence. On the contrary, they may have made the film to portray just how dangerous and violence Islam truly is. Thus when believes in Islam react to this film by killing people they are simply proving that Islam is indeed an extremely dangerous religion.

Imagine the situation the other way round once:
Islamists make a reviling video against Christians or Jews. By spreading such lies that Christians feel forced; for the defense of their faith; reaching for the weapon. Killing people, storming buildings. Embassies of Islamic countries bombard.
Would this be right? Would this be permitted because of the right to an free speech?

People who react against insults to their religion by grabbing weapons and killing anyone who insults their religion are already extremely immature, insecure about their religion, and clearly violent people to begin with.

Reacting so violently to someone saying something that is considered insulting is not a responsible, mature reaction, at all.

If we needed to restrict freedom of speech so that nothing that could possibly insult someone is ever mentioned, there wouldn't be much freedom in speech at all.

They would ultimately use that kind of restriction on speech to make sure that no one could even so much as "question" the validity of their religion because to merely question it could be claimed to be an "insult".

It was that very thing that has kept these Abrahamic religions alive for so many centuries. To even question the validity of the religion was considered "blaspheme" and could be punished severely.

If we start restricting freedom of speech back toward that mindset, we'd just be heading right straight back into the dark ages again.

The problem of people being insulted about their religions needs to be addressed at their end. They need to get over it. They need to realize that belief in religion is entirely faith-based and it simply isn't even reasonable, nor practical for any person of faith to try to demand that no one say anything insulting about their religion.

Like I say, for them to become so insulted over such a thing only show immaturity on their part, as well as grave insecurities about their very faith.

If they were firm about their faith they wouldn't care what anyone said about because they would simply know that it's not true.

The mere fact that they feel they need to shut people up who speak out against their religion reveals that they are themselves extremely doubtful of their religion's ability to withstand ridicule and inquisition.

[The Ex-Mormon]

You don't know that their intent was to incite violence. On the contrary, they may have made the film to portray just how dangerous and violence Islam truly is. Thus when believes in Islam react to this film by killing people they are simply proving that Islam is indeed an extremely dangerous religion.

The fundamentalist Islam is just as violent as a fundamentalist Christianity or Judaism. And there is enough proof for it in history of mankind. If the Islam was tolerant in history of mankind, he also stimulated the Christianity and the Judaism. But if the Islam was intolerant, he destroyed everything. And it just the same was with the fundamentalistic Christianity and Judaism.

People who react against insults to their religion by grabbing weapons and killing anyone who insults their religion are already extremely immature, insecure about their religion, and clearly violent people to begin with.

To understand why they react in the Islam so, you must understand which position Mohammed has in the hearts of the Muslims. Namely similar as Jesus Christ with the Christians. Therefore Muslims personally feel insulted if about their prophet - from their point of view; lies being spread. And to be more precise in a way; as her with living people defamatory; and would have drawn a process after himself in many countries of Europe.
There is a "blasphemy section" in many countries of Europe. Not because the government wants to stipulate what somebody has to believe; but keep around the peace in the country. So that there is e.g. no violent quarrel which religion is the "true religion".

If we needed to restrict freedom of speech so that nothing that could possibly insult someone is ever mentioned, there wouldn't be much freedom in speech at all.

Much would already be achieved if everyone would agree on certain manners with each other. If e.g. you discuss relevantly about a topic; and not full of hate and prejudices.

The mere fact that they feel they need to shut people up who speak out against their religion reveals that they are themselves extremely doubtful of their religion's ability to withstand ridicule and inquisition.

Most Muslims have nothing against criticism of their religion; provided that it is made in a form which does not hurt the feelings of the Muslims.
I have e.g. a neighbor family, which are all Muslims. We have talked about the film. They think that the film is offending and obcene; decline, however, every form of violence. Also if they can understand the feelings of other Muslems.
We talked about Mohammed, and I said once; that I know Haddhite (these are collected remarks of the prophet) in which Mohammed had allowedbto rape the women of prisoners of war (in front of the eyes of their husbands). And this would have given Mohammed of more "murder orders" to let critics kill.
The man replied after that that one should always take into account the temporal context. He thought that one should interpret the Koran newly again and again. He by the way is a fan of Martin Luther and he wants a reformation also for the Islam.

[Divine Insight]

To understand why they react in the Islam so, you must understand which position Mohammed has in the hearts of the Muslims. Namely similar as Jesus Christ with the Christians. Therefore Muslims personally feel insulted if about their prophet - from their point of view; lies being spread.

Well, both the Muslims and the Christians insult Wiccans basically on a daily basis, by accusing "Wicca" to be an abomination clearly condemned by their God himself. They also often state "as a matter of truth, so they claim" that Wicca is the work of their Satan, a totally disgusting and clearly evil demonic fallen angel.

So from the point of view of the Wiccans, lies are being spread by the Christians and Muslims about their religion. And they find this highly insulting as well. Wicca has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Christian or Muslim demon called Satan.

So my point is that the the Christians and Muslims are being extremely hypocritical. They are quick to react violently and demand that no one say anything bad about their religion, whilst they hypocritically do precisely this thing to other religions.

So they will get no sympathy from me.

If they react so violently as to actually start killing Ambassadors over some movie that was made by citizens of a country that supports freedom of speech and expression, then all I can say is that their religions haven't taught them any decent moral values at all.

All the more reason to suspect that their religions are actually grounded in their demonic fallen angel that they try to shove onto everyone else.

If they want to claim that their religion is actually guided by a benevolent all-loving God, they're going to need to be an example of loving benevolence.

Killed Ambassadors over movies that they feel are insulting is far from exhibiting the love and benevolence that they claim their religion is supposed to be about or instill in people.

Apparently their religion instills precisely the opposite into its followers: Violence, hostility, anger, and hate.

Is that what their religion stands for?