US Ambassador to Libya killed in attacks

[BubberMiley]

And what's the point of freedom of speech if it's subject to the impulses of insane people somewhere on the globe?

I'm not advocating curtailing anyone's freedom of speech, including whoever made the video. I'm just rolling my eyes at those who like to instigate intercultural fights from the safety of anonymity, including you.

[scribblet]

Not sure if this is the right thread to put this?

An excellent article by Tarek Fatah

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/18/only-god-can-help-muslims-from-ourselves

[Argus]

Of course they could never get away with it here. One has to wonder how far some might go if they had the same kind of license as seems the case in some countries. Not saying they would but the restraints against that kind of behaviour are much stronger in western countries.

Because we're a more civilized country, you mean...

[Argus]

Yes, intentionally provoking them has no benefit.

I disagree. Maybe if we provoked them more, put out this sort of thing every other day, all over the world, they'd soon get used to it and stop going bananas every time they heard something. After all, you can't riot every day. Sooner or later it's gonna be "Oh, another cartoon about Mohammed. Ho hum. Sorry, too busy to go rioting tonight."

The French mag in question puts out nasty things about Christians and others, so why should they exempt Muslims? Because Muslims are more likely to go nuts and kill people? Doesn't that basically lead to a world where you can write what you want -- unless the people you want to write about are likely to take violent exception? The lesson from that being we should all take violent exception to anything which offends us so that everyone stops printing or showing it...

Edited September 20, 2012 by Argus

[Shady]

Listening to Webster Tarpley on Jones the other day, Tarpley seems to indicate that there is a group that may have ties to Romney that are the ones who put out the video.

LOL! I knew you'd get back to Romney somehow! Too f'ing funny!

It's Romney's fault!

[Shady]

I'm not advocating curtailing anyone's freedom of speech, including whoever made the video. I'm just rolling my eyes at those who like to instigate intercultural fights from the safety of anonymity, including you.

The extremists have forced anonymity. If one doesn't protect themselves, they end up like Theo Van Gogh.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Shady

[Shady]

The United Nations has weighed in on the issue...

Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

AP

There's no point in freedom of speech if ceases to be a freedom because it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs. What if the person provoked of humiliated has idiotic beliefs? You can't call them on it? WTF???

[Wilber]

Because we're a more civilized country, you mean...

Did I say that?

[Wilber]

The United Nations has weighed in on the issue...

There's no point in freedom of speech if ceases to be a freedom because it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs. What if the person provoked of humiliated has idiotic beliefs? You can't call them on it? WTF???

Freedom of speech does have limits. It is illegal to yell FIRE in crowded theater. It may be legal but deliberately taunting someone so you can get them to do something violent is similar and irresponsible.

[Guest American Woman]

Freedom of speech does have limits. It is illegal to yell FIRE in crowded theater. It may be legal but deliberately taunting someone so you can get them to do something violent is similar and irresponsible.

Actually, 'illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater' "refers to an outdated legal standard." At least in the U.S., which of course is where this movie was made. "At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a 'clear and present danger.' But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own." link

[bud]

i'm curious how the islamophobe alarmists here feel about the anti-holocaust denial laws in many of the european countries. are you for them or against limiting speech in this instance? american woman? shady? sharkman? jbg?

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries.

link

[GostHacked]

Now I guess we know why GITMO could not be closed. Could be considered a terrorist training facility. We have seen how many people that have been released in the past few years only to be caught again and detained at GITMO for a second and sometimes third time.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/top-administration-official-says-strike-in-libya-was-terror-attack/

Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/19/top-administration-official-says-strike-in-libya-was-terror-attack/#ixzz270mGUMgG

Just more ties between the American intelligence services and Al-Queda.

[Wilber]

Actually, 'illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater' "refers to an outdated legal standard." At least in the U.S., which of course is where this movie was made. "At one point, the law criminalized such speech, which created a 'clear and present danger.' But since 1969, for speech to break the law, it can’t merely lead others to dangerous situations. It must directly encourage others to commit specific criminal actions of their own." link

I stand corrected. It is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater because it is not illegal.

[BubberMiley]

I stand corrected. It is OK to yell fire in a crowded theater because it is not illegal.

Yes. And criticizing someone for yelling fire in a crowded theatre would be the equivalent of taking away their freedom of speech.

Now you're understanding how to debate around here.

[Bonam]

i'm curious how the islamophobe alarmists here feel about the anti-holocaust denial laws in many of the european countries. are you for them or against limiting speech in this instance? american woman? shady? sharkman? jbg?

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries.

link

Those laws are wrong and unnecessary. Holocaust deniers should be allowed to speak their nonsense, so they can be discredited publicly by the facts.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bonam

[Bonam]

The United Nations has weighed in on the issue...

There's no point in freedom of speech if ceases to be a freedom because it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs. What if the person provoked of humiliated has idiotic beliefs? You can't call them on it? WTF???

It's typical of the UN. You must remember, the majority of nations comprising the UN general assembly do not have any enshrined rights regarding freedom of speech, it is not part of their culture. To many nations in the UN, the more they can restrict speech and control it, the better. So of course they don't understand "free speech" and think speech should be limited to only what is convenient.

Ban's statement should frankly be appalling to anyone who treasures the right of freedom of expression. According to his statement, the only cases in which it should be protected is when it is used for "common justice" and "common purpose". So basically it should not be protected whenever you want to say anything against what has been established as the "common purpose". And we all know what that means. Sickening.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bonam

[bud]

i'm not usually a fan of thomas friedman and memri's cherry picking (as i don't fully trust their interpretations), but i thought i'd share this piece which talks about the hypocrisy of the muslim world's leaders who are up in arms and preaching tolerance of religion after the latest incident - i fully agree with friedman's final two paragraphs:

ON CHRISTIANS Hasan Rahimpur Azghadi of the Iranian Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution: Christianity is “a reeking corpse, on which you have to constantly pour eau de cologne and perfume, and wash it in order to keep it clean.” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1528.htm — July 20, 2007.

Sheik Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi: It is permissible to spill the blood of the Iraqi Christians — and a duty to wage jihad against them. http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5200.htm — April 14, 2011.

Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, a Saudi professor of Islamic law, calls for “positive hatred” of Christians. Al-Majd TV (Saudi Arabia), http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/992.htm — Dec. 16, 2005.

ON SHIITES The Egyptian Cleric Muhammad Hussein Yaaqub: “Muslim Brotherhood Presidential Candidate Mohamed Morsi told me that the Shiites are more dangerous to Islam than the Jews.” www.memritv.org/clip/en/3466.htm — June 13, 2012.

The Egyptian Cleric Mazen al-Sirsawi: “If Allah had not created the Shiites as human beings, they would have been donkeys.” http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/3101.htm — Aug. 7, 2011.

The Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan video series: “The Shiite is a Nasl [Race/Offspring] of Jews.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6208.htm — March 21, 2012.

ON JEWS Article on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Web site praises jihad against America and the Jews: “The Descendants of Apes and Pigs.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6656.htm — Sept. 7, 2012.

The Pakistani cleric Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai: “When the Jews are wiped out, the world would be purified and the sun of peace would rise on the entire world.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6557.htm — Aug. 1, 2012.

Dr. Ismail Ali Muhammad, a senior Al-Azhar scholar: The Jews, “a source of evil and harm in all human societies.” http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/51/6086.htm — Feb. 14, 2012.

ON SUFIS A shrine venerating a Sufi Muslim saint in Libya has been partly destroyed, the latest in a series of attacks blamed on ultraconservative Salafi Islamists. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19380083 — Aug. 26, 2012.

As a Jew who has lived and worked in the Muslim world, I know that these expressions of intolerance are only one side of the story and that there are deeply tolerant views and strains of Islam espoused and practiced there as well. Theirs are complex societies.

That’s the point. America is a complex society, too. But let’s cut the nonsense that this is just our problem and the only issue is how we clean up our act. That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths and prophets of others. But that runs both ways. Our president and major newspapers consistently condemn hate speech against other religions. How about yours?

link

Edited September 20, 2012 by bud

[bud]

Those laws are wrong and unnecessary. Holocaust deniers should be allowed to speak their nonsense, so they can be discredited publicly by the facts.

agreed. however, it's too bad that there is no discussion on europe's anti-free speech laws that focus on another group besides muslims, especially by those who so passionately condemn self-censorship when discussing islam.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bud

[Shady]

i'm curious how the islamophobe alarmists here feel about the anti-holocaust denial laws in many of the european countries. are you for them or against limiting speech in this instance? american woman? shady? sharkman? jbg?

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries.

link

I'm against such laws.

[Shady]

That Cairo protester is right: We should respect the faiths and prophets of others.

I don't think anybody should be forced to respect any faith, any prophet, or any idea. That's what free speech and freedom in general is all about.

[Wilber]

Those laws are wrong and unnecessary. Holocaust deniers should be allowed to speak their nonsense, so they can be discredited publicly by the facts.

Of course we don't live in the countries where it took place. They do.

[bud]

I don't think anybody should be forced to respect any faith, any prophet, or any idea. That's what free speech and freedom in general is all about.

no one should be forced, sure. but as a society, there is nothing wrong with saying we should respect one another.

Edited September 20, 2012 by bud

[bud]

I'm against such laws.

what about anti-boycott laws? since boycotting is considered a form of freedom of expression. i put this question to both you and bonam.

[Bonam]

what about anti-boycott laws? since boycotting is considered a form of freedom of expression. i put this question to both you and bonam.

Individuals should be free to boycott whatever they want. On the other hand, corporations, unions, government agencies, and academic institutions are not people, and must follow laws that individuals are not subject to. Such organizations cannot take actions that are deemed discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.

Take a simple example. If I was so inclined, as an individual, I would be free not to purchase goods and services from businesses run by people of a certain race. For example, if I don't want to, I am free not to shop in stores run by black people. On the other hand, if I run a store, I am NOT free to refuse to sell goods or services to black people, or to refuse to hire black people.

So individuals can boycott whatever they want. I could boycott buying goods made in a country whose politics I disagree with, for example. Or I could not sign up for classes taught by professors from a certain country. But an academic institution boycotting professors from a certain country? A union demanding that its employer discriminate based on national origin? No, these things should not be allowed and I would oppose them.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Bonam

[Shady]

no one should be forced, sure. but as a society, there is nothing wrong with saying we should respect one another.

Sure, but sometimes people and/or ideas don't deserve respect. People should be free to decide.