HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » At U.N., free speech divi...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 10:47 PM

At U.N., free speech divides West and Muslim nations

Source: L.A. Times

UNITED NATIONS — The annual U.N. General Assembly meeting, which is intended to celebrate the world's common values, this year is exposing instead the gulf between Western and Islamic perspectives on freedom of expression, posing an unexpected challenge for President Obama when he speaks here Tuesday.

Prompted by the anti-Islam video produced in California that has stirred deadly riots around the world, delegations from major Muslim nations have arrived at the U.N. prepared to demand international curbs on speech or media that they believe defame their religion or the prophet Muhammad.

<snip>

Erdogan, whom President Obama views as a key ally, has declared that all 57 Islamic nations "should speak forcefully with one voice," and has called for "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred."

These leaders consider anti-Islamic material a kind of hate speech that should be banned around the world. They are expected to demand those regulations when debate begins Tuesday in the General Assembly.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-un-free-speech-20120925,0,1193527.story



This really troubles me for a number of reasons. It illustrates an enormous gap.

111 replies, 15178 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply At U.N., free speech divides West and Muslim nations (Original post)
cali Sep 2012 OP
marasinghe Sep 2012 #1
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #90
Marksman_91 Sep 2012 #2
LesserFool Sep 2012 #5
Quantess Sep 2012 #14
azurnoir Sep 2012 #17
Quantess Sep 2012 #18
azurnoir Sep 2012 #35
Quantess Sep 2012 #51
azurnoir Sep 2012 #52
Quantess Sep 2012 #60
azurnoir Sep 2012 #82
Quantess Sep 2012 #94
socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #103
Ash_F Sep 2012 #20
christx30 Sep 2012 #21
Jackpine Radical Sep 2012 #27
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #91
azurnoir Sep 2012 #16
closeupready Sep 2012 #55
closeupready Sep 2012 #54
Marksman_91 Sep 2012 #99
Socal31 Sep 2012 #3
Speck Tater Sep 2012 #4
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #6
glacierbay Sep 2012 #9
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #29
glacierbay Sep 2012 #32
Jessy169 Sep 2012 #40
glacierbay Sep 2012 #45
MicaelS Sep 2012 #50
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #79
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #83
glacierbay Sep 2012 #107
JDPriestly Sep 2012 #12
leftynyc Sep 2012 #24
DonCoquixote Sep 2012 #77
Donowitz Sep 2012 #7
glacierbay Sep 2012 #25
Donowitz Sep 2012 #37
kiranon Sep 2012 #8
PavePusher Sep 2012 #15
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #22
slackmaster Sep 2012 #26
kiranon Sep 2012 #80
slackmaster Sep 2012 #86
PavePusher Sep 2012 #33
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #38
slackmaster Sep 2012 #87
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #89
slackmaster Sep 2012 #93
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #100
PavePusher Sep 2012 #96
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #101
slackmaster Sep 2012 #104
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #105
slackmaster Sep 2012 #106
X_Digger Sep 2012 #109
slackmaster Sep 2012 #110
ieoeja Sep 2012 #71
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #81
PavePusher Sep 2012 #98
kiranon Sep 2012 #78
PavePusher Sep 2012 #95
slackmaster Sep 2012 #97
msongs Sep 2012 #10
trouble.smith Sep 2012 #11
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #92
azurnoir Sep 2012 #13
cali Sep 2012 #19
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #23
azurnoir Sep 2012 #34
glacierbay Sep 2012 #43
azurnoir Sep 2012 #47
glacierbay Sep 2012 #48
azurnoir Sep 2012 #49
glacierbay Sep 2012 #53
azurnoir Sep 2012 #58
glacierbay Sep 2012 #61
azurnoir Sep 2012 #62
glacierbay Sep 2012 #63
azurnoir Sep 2012 #65
glacierbay Sep 2012 #66
azurnoir Sep 2012 #74
glacierbay Sep 2012 #85
glacierbay Sep 2012 #64
azurnoir Sep 2012 #69
glacierbay Sep 2012 #70
azurnoir Sep 2012 #72
dipsydoodle Sep 2012 #102
azurnoir Sep 2012 #39
bemildred Sep 2012 #31
azurnoir Sep 2012 #36
hack89 Sep 2012 #41
azurnoir Sep 2012 #46
hack89 Sep 2012 #56
azurnoir Sep 2012 #57
hack89 Sep 2012 #67
azurnoir Sep 2012 #73
hack89 Sep 2012 #76
bemildred Sep 2012 #68
Odin2005 Sep 2012 #28
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #30
pampango Sep 2012 #42
glacierbay Sep 2012 #44
obnoxiousdrunk Sep 2012 #59
Sentath Sep 2012 #88
fun n serious Sep 2012 #75
Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #84
M_M Sep 2012 #108
Shitty Mitty Sep 2012 #111

Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 10:56 PM

1. hypocrisy on every single side - no exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marasinghe (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:06 PM

90. What is the hypocrisy of your side? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 10:57 PM

2. Give me a break

Since when do Muslims (or any religion, for that matter) deserve some kind of special treatment? People are the same no matter what religion they follow. I have nothing against Muslim people. Hell, a bunch of my college friends are Muslims. But this group requesting this kind of action is giving a wrong image of Muslims being pretentious, self-entitled children. Do you see any other people from different religions demanding that all kinds of media making fun of their prophet (or their equivalent) be banned? Now, if the objective is banning media which sole purpose is to obviously promote hate, like "Innocence of Muslims" was, then I wouldn't have a problem. But banning media based on the fact that some people can't take a joke is really absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:13 PM

5. One man's religion is another man's joke

As an agnostic, I think all organized religions are a (sad) joke. There is nothing too sacred to be criticized, especially when you consider that blasphemy may very well be a victimless crime. The glory of free speech - and its greatest strength - is when it protects ideas that offend the most people. Free speech for popular ideas is not particularly glorious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LesserFool (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:57 AM

14. Well stated. I fully agree with your post.

Consider posting more often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:32 AM

17. I have a question about free speech

you've been around DU about as long as I have so do you remember when it common to see Ann Coulter referred to as mAnn Coulter? that went for a bit until the LGBT community spoke and said that it was offensive to Transgender people and it stopped, now wasn't that also an infringement of free speech?

My point here is that what is defended as free speech and what is observed as offensive seems a bit select, according to values of the community, I myself feel that both are offensive the Coulter reference which I fully understand and Muslims being offended by what is deemed blasphemy which actually I don't fully understand but I'll take their word for it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:58 AM

18. Free speech on the DU? I don't think that is the topic, here.

In fact I know it isn't the topic.
Freedom of speech sometimes clashes with being respectful and polite, something that no one seems to be denying.

Muslims say they are offended, well, I will also take their word for it. But that doesn't give them the right to silence others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:04 PM

35. well I gave an example you are attempting to make it the subject

but it does IMO opinion make my point it is okay to offend some that is free speech but others not so much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:12 PM

51. Hmm... DU has its own ideas about who is okay to offend and who isn't.

The DU is a privately owned political message board. Here at the DU, it is not acceptable to call Ann Coulter a transsexual because it is an insulting to transgendered persons. But making fun of religions is perfectly okay at the DU.

The 1st amendment, on the other hand, allows both. There is very little that is not protected by the first amendment in our constitution.

I still am not sure which one you want to discuss: The DU message board, or our constitution. Pick one. You don't get to confuse the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:17 PM

52. but once again I am not the one attempting to conflate the 2

but do feel quite quite free to tell me what I do and do not get to do, seems free speech indeed has its limits thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:52 PM

60. LOL, what on god's green earth are you even talking about?

Are you saying you are not conflating the two? Because, right now, you just suggested that I am trying to limit your free speech:
but do feel quite quite free to tell me what I do and do not get to do, seems free speech indeed has its limits thanks

This is the silliest "argument" I have had at the DU for a long time. Thanks for the chuckle. See you later. I'm done for today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:06 PM

82. yep and the 'chuckle' is mutual as you edited your comment after I made mine

about it thanks chuckles indeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #82)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:18 PM

94. I honestly did not see that you had replied before I made my edit for clarity.

If you think it is a big deal, here is the original:

Hmm... DU has its own ideas about who is okay to offend and who isn't.

It is not acceptable to call Ann Coulter a transsexual because it is an insulting to transgendered persons. But making fun of religions is perfectly okay at the DU.

The 1st amendment, on the other hand, allows both. There is very little that is not protected by the first amendment.

I still am not sure which one you want to discuss: DU or our constitution. You don't get to confuse the two.


I felt like I needed to clarify myself better, since you seem confused about the difference between a privately owned message board like DU, and the cornerstone of democracy that is Freedom of Speech. There is no underhandedness involved, here.

This whole conversation has been bizzarre to me, because I can't believe someone can be so confused about the difference (like confusing an apple and an orange) that they want to start talking about MAnn Coulter references in the same sentence as our first amendment. And then suggest that I am trying to infringe on their freedom of speech... while we are having a discussion! Do I really need to explain to that person that having a discussion is an exercise of free speech? This exchange has been baffling to me, like, is this a joke? If you cannot separate the DU discussion board from the 1st amendment... there is no point in discussing it with you. I am going to put you on ignore for a few days, because this is beyond silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:56 AM

103. People are taught to be offended

When we're little kids we go along thru life and some kid comes up and says - You're parents are poor.

You shrug your shoulders and your friend says - I wouldn't let him say that about my family.

And so begins the belief that you should defend your family, girlfriend, etc. - you get offended

A lot of Americans have pointed out that they could care less if someone says something against their religion. I'm not embarrassed because it's my word against yours and my opinion against yours and we accept that people will disagree - especially about religion. We even say - don't talk about religion or politics if you don't want an argument.

I submit that the Muslim people have been taught and given permission that they can become outraged if someone says something against their religion and even if they create an image of their prophet. We say - so what. They say - I'll give $100,000 to anyone who does the right thing and kills this guy.

Look at all the killing that went on in the dark ages when the religious leaders could have a person drawn and quartered because they didn't agree with the "church" - meaning they disagreed with a person who had the power of life and death. Then we move to the Salem witch trials and people (mostly women) put to death because others were afraid of the boogie man.

IMHO I would say that the more a group sets up these unforgiving penalties for questioning a religion or a government the more they are trying to protect their view and not have to defend it in any way. If you're right you should be able to defend your position. We've seen throughout history that the people who demand a blind following are dictatorial and controlling and just don't want to be bothered with arguing their point or being confronted.

If all of our religions condoned killing non-believers we'd have global chaos.

If we didn't disagree with religious beliefs that were accepted at any point in history all of the "Christian" countries would all still be Jews - but someone started Catholicism and then Martin Luther started the Protestant religion. Major Note: I took a religion class and realized for the first time (at 53 years of age) that Protestant means the people who protested,

So, evolving beliefs allow new religions to evolve. Islam began because someone heard Mohammad speak and thought he had a point. Good for them. But killing all the people who disagree just stops the religion from evolving. Secondly - to condone killing has been illegal in the modern world for a log time - of course unless the government decides it's o.k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 05:06 AM

20. I remember that!

I was just lurking at the time but I remember those days. One of the ways DU has become a better community IMO.




In other ways...not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:02 AM

21. There is a difference between

the LGBT community being offended and asking that you stop doing it and passing laws saying you'll be jailed and/or killed for doing it. Someone can say something, and I can say "I don't appreciate you saying that. I find it offensive. I'd thank you to not say it any more." and not be violating their First Amendment rights. Because they can tell me where to stick it and keep saying it. I don't have any power over what they say nor should I.
What that section of the worldwide Muslim population want is the power to stop attacks on their religion with laws against blasphemy, with death as the penalty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:00 AM

27. DUers voluntarily quit the offensive speech

when its hurtful nature was pointed out to them. That's not the same as passing a law to punish speech.

Even if DU has a policy of tombstoning those whose speech doesn't conform to group standards, that's not the same as legally forbidding that speech. Posting is a privilege. My local newspaper wouldn't publish every piece of drivel I might send them either, and it is their right to deny me their pages as a forum.

Yes, there is a definite clash of values between the Islamic world and the rest of us on this issue. It is one of those things that will take careful, thoughtful and sensitive negotiation, and is one of the reasons I'm glad Obama is at the helm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:09 PM

91. If police were arresting people for typing mAnn Coulter, then that would be a violation of

free speech.

This website is someone else's property. If I were at your house, and saying really hurtful things, you may ask me to leave. This does not violate my free speech in anyway because I would still be free to say these things, just not at your house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LesserFool (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:17 AM

16. yes it is oh so glorious especially when those "the most people"

live on the other side of world and their protests can be pumped for political advantage a bit closer to home at least by some, very liberal forward thinking there I'd like to hear some more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #16)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:32 PM

55. You SO nailed it there. +1000000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marksman_91 (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:29 PM

54. No I will not give you a break.

And no, I will not call you when the situation is as you or any Islamophobe here on DU feels that the situation is equitable, and muslims have "earned" the right to be treated fairly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:27 PM

99. Wow... You got straight to the point, huh

Islamophobe? Seriously? I have friends in college who are Muslims, and they're some of the nicest people I know.

You clearly missed the point, I was criticizing the particular group of Muslims that are the leaders of most Middle-Eastern nations that are pushing for banning anything that offends their faith. Try to read a little better next time, ok?

And please tell me how Muslims have "earned" the right to be treated fairly. As far as I know, your faith does not determine whether you deserve anything or not, only your actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:09 PM

3. Good luck with that.

What a waste of time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:11 PM

4. As I pointed out in another thread...

 

I really can't simply stand by and allow these Christians and Muslims to blaspheme against The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The United Nations must act to shut down the offending churches and mosques immediately. Why, in many Arab countries they stand on the balcony and shout out their anti-Flying Spaghetti Monster blasphemies several times a day! It's intolerable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:17 PM

6. We do have a problem here

The majority of Muslim people are poor, destitute, uneducated and oppressed. Their religion is all they have. Allowing Americans with sinister intentions to create slanderous communications and broadcast those directly into the "hornets nest" of the Muslim populations, simply to stir up trouble, does nothing to move those Muslims toward appreciating the great concept of American Free Speech. The only effect is to inspire hatred and anger toward all Americans, to instill in many Muslims the burning desire for revenge. Trying to convert Muslims to concepts of "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" with communications like "Innocense of Muslims" and many similar productions is a wasted and self-defeating effort.

But we do have many people in America who think otherwise. Those same people, I suppose, should we ever discover another planet with less developed civilizations than our own, will want to begin broadcasting hate speech and obnoxious crap to the newly discovered civilizations in hopes of converting them to America's way of thinking too. The fact that the civilizaitons riot, hate us and want to kill us as a result is -- tough luck. We are America, and our crazy people have the first amendment right of free speech to spread their hate wherever they want. Isn't that right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #6)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:40 PM

9. That is right

 

we, as americans, do have the constitutional right to spew all the hate speech, obnoxious speech that we want to, as vile as it is and I will always support the right to spew it, not support the speech itself, but the right as americans to say it, and no amount of hand wringing by you or anyone else is going to change that and all the treaties proposed at the UN won't fly here at home for the simple fact that no treat can, by law, infringe on the US Constitutution, and, besides, it would take a majority vote in the House and Senate and then to top it off, it will take 3/4 of the states to ratify it, that means it would only take 13 states saying NO to defeat it.

You've been trying to push this crap for the last couple of weeks now and you have precious little support for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:18 AM

29. Your point of view is identical to that of fanatical right-wing hatemongers

I think there is a lot more support both here and in America for finding ways to limit hate speech than you are aware of. The "crap" that I've been "trying to push" for the last couple of weeks is simply an attempt to promote discussion on the topic of hate speech -- to get opinions and promote understanding of the subject -- something that you and a few others are apparantly opposed to. Instead, you are resolute in your (and others') "right" to spew the hatred, obnoxious slanders and vile speech to whoever, whenever you want, regardless of the consequences. Your posture on this topic explains the belligerent tone of your posts, and is identical to the many right-wing "defenses" of hate speech. My guess is that you haven't spent enough time learning the very real and dangerous, even deadly, effects that hate speech has on Americans and on others around the world. Or, you are aware of the consequences, but still support unlimited hate speech because it is something that perhaps you are prone to use, consequences be damned. Don't be surprised if you one day wake up and find that reasonable, non-hate-filled Americans have had enough of this "crap" and that a majority are in favor of sensible (think Canada, U.K. other countries) laws to at least put a lid on the most vile and dangerous samples of hate speech that we currently have to deal with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #29)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:34 AM

32. My point of view is identical to that of fanatical right-wing hatemongers?

 

Are you seriously believing that? I thought that RW wanted to limit speech they didn't agree with, just like you.
You are wrong on so many levels. I've been a cop in a fair sized city for nigh onto 30 years now and have been called every hateful thing in the book and some that aren't in the book, I didn't like it, but, unlike you, I accept that it's the right of the person who said it.
You really think that you have alot of support for your position? Judging by the vast majority of comments to your wanting to limit hate speech, whether by passing a law, which is wholly unconstitutional, or other means, you have very little support here.
BTW, I don't use hate speech in my professional or personal life. I know the consequences but I do wholeheartedly support americans right to spew all the hate speech they want, I don't support the message, but I support the right to say the message.
Who gives a flying fuck what other countries do? This is not the UK, Canada or any other country, this is the US where we have that right so deal with it.

Can someone please start a poll asking if the US should limit or ban hate speech. I would dearly love to see the results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:33 PM

40. Yes, identical

Your thinking that RW wants to limit speech they don't agree with may be true in some cases, but in the case of what we commonly refer to as "hate speech", the right-wing is both the most fierce advocate of the right to create and spread hate speech, and the primary benefactor of hate speech. Hate speech is a right-wing operation, used by the right-wing for all kinds of devious ends -- inciting violence in the Middle East being one of those ends, oppressing and keeping minorities here in America "in their place" being another one of those ends, and more. The fact that you don't know that proves how unaware you are of the consequences of hate speech. You being called every name in the book as a cop doesn't make you an expert on hate speech. You supporting hate speech is equal to you supporting all of the dire and extremely negative consequences of hate speech, whether you realize it or not, or whether you want to admit it or not. Telling me to "deal with it" is pointless -- I am dealing with the consequences of hate speech, as are you and everybody else in America. Tell the Sihks at the temple where they all got slaughtered to "deal with it". Tell Giffords to "deal with it". Tell the minorities whose suicide rates are directly and statistically linked to the amount of hate speech directed at them to "deal with it." Tell the burning Middle East to "deal with it". Hate speech kills, you should know that. Your right to hate speech should not interfere with my right or anybody's right to lead a peaceful life free of people wanting to kill me because they are all psyched up on hate and anger and lies. But probably that concept escapes you. Please think about it some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:49 PM

45. The difference you and I

 

is that I'm not trying to limit it or ban it as you seem to be suggesting, and, judging by Pres. Obama's speech at the UN, he doesn't agree with you either.
It seems that my views are identical to Pres. Obama's, are you saying that he is more in tune with the RW now?

I still stand by my statement that you have precious little support for your views on freedom of speech here.

Nice strawman saying I support hate speech. Show me one, just one post where I said that I support hate speech? You can't because I NEVER said that, here's what I said, I condemn hate speech, but I support the right of people to spew hate speech.
So unless you can post a link showing me saying that I support hate speech, you need to retract your dishonest statement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:06 PM

50. RW Christians would take a Hate Speech law and then

They would cram it right down people's throats until they choked. Talk about Unintended Consequences.

They would use it to go after every negative statement about Christianity, and Christians. DU would be prime target for the misuse of such a law, given how many members make posts against Christianity and Christians. They would sue in a court of law, force DU to reveal the real identifies of individual members, and then sue, or try to criminal prosecute DU members who make posts against Christianity and Christians. LGBT members would be special targets. They would label DU a "hate speech website" and try to get it shut down.

Your is a very naive and foolish viewpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:40 PM

79. Again

The issue of who gets to decide what is hate speech becomes an issue of power, to make one group the first class citizens, and one the second. The Danish cartoon was done in one of these countries with more regulated speech, and the ruins are still smoking. Meanwhile,the response done by these countries with the regulated speech was to ban Muslims headscarves, which many Muslims found as offenseive as what the americans did, as it showed that the schools were makign people who used them second class citizens.

Black and White are not useful here. The right of free speech can be ugly, but the cure is worse, especially as you know that it will be abused. Muslims rioted against a cartoon, and in the name of tolerance, Muslim women has to lose their headscarves, which meant they could not pratcise their religion. A nice hell, made of good intentions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:33 PM

83. your quote, analyzed

"Your right to hate speech should not interfere with my right or anybody's right to lead a peaceful life free of people wanting to kill me because they are all psyched up on hate and anger and lies. But probably that concept escapes you. Please think about it some more."

Well, nor should the prejudices of other people that think that a gay person should be killed because they are gay.

Or women hurt because religion says they should be.

Or any number of example where religious fundamentalists show that their idea of a "peaceful life" includes the need to coerce, threaten and kill people.

If religion did not try to coerce others, than this discussion would be moot, but it does. Yes, most average people are not the rock throwers, but every religion stokes enough of them, and usually fall silent when asked to corral them in, citing their "right of religious freedom."

Tell a Gay person whose family shuns them to deal with it.

Tell a woman forced to bear a baby to deal with it.

I could go all night long, but I can do better. I quoted how France, one of those nations that had been discussing how to limit speech, wound up making life harder for Muslims. That is a majority's defaultposition will always be "whatever limits a minority is good." Your faith that safeguards can be put in that will NOT become a means of suppression is itself, an act of faith, do tell us HOW you would avoid it being just another toolfor a majority to oppress a minority. It is easy to simply call people who disagree with your point of view right wingers, it is another to put your actual ideas forward and take RESPONSIBILITY for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #40)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:19 AM

107. So,

 

Have you read all the posts here? Still think that you have wide support for your views on free speech?
Judging by what is posted here, you have zero support for your views, and I, for one, find that very encouraging to know that we still stand up for our 1st Amendment right.
Once again, I condemn the message of hate, but I do support the right of the people to convey the message via the 1st Amendment.
That is all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:50 AM

12. Hmmmmm.

"international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred."

Does this mean that Saudi Arabia and certain other Muslim countries will allow Christian Bibles to be given out without attacking those who give them away?

Does this mean that Muslims will treat the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc. religions with the same respect that they treat their own?

Attacks on what people deem sacred.

I remember hearing of Muslim attacks on Jewish and Christian people and their places of worship in the Middle East. Egypt I believe, but also elsewhere.

It is very easy to object to jokes about your own religion and about discrimination against your own religion, but tolerance and fairness require refraining from jokes and discrimination against other religions.

When Egyptians and Saudi Arabians and other Muslim countries and their people respect the right of Muslims to convert to Christianity as we in the US respect the right of Christians or people of other religions to convert to the Muslim religion, then, maybe we can have a discussion about what an attack on another's religion means.

Tolerance is the key.

And I favor complete freedom of religion. No government should enforce any law protecting or prohibiting religious expression. That is what I would like to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:53 AM

24. If the Muslim countries were consistent

in this, we could have a conversation about it. But when Egypt has an entire mini series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when the Gaza Strip has textbooks calling Jews monkeys, when the President of Iran calls Israel a cancer - you'll just have to figure my complete disinterest in what they find offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jessy169 (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:33 PM

77. OK, as someone who lives near terry Jones

Should all Americans learn to gag themslves for the sake of someone who is not even liked in his home county? Must we allcut off our hands, because if we let someone keep one finger, they may raise it and make an obscene gesture? Lastly, do you want to rweard religions for using violence, because if you do, they WILL NOT STOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:22 PM

7. The right to criticize the "sacred" is a part of any civilized society

There should be absolutely no restriction on criticism/mockery of invisible old men in the sky, zombie carpenters, or flying spaghetti monsters etc. In the civilized world when someone draws a picture of say George Washington people aren't all up in arms.

Although I do agree that hate speech should be banned, mocking organized religion (both xtianity and islam) is not hate speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Donowitz (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:23 AM

25. Hate speech should not be banned.

 

It should be countered with facts.
If a law were passed banning hate speech, who decides what hate speech is? You? Me? The repubs? Suppose, just for the hell of it, the repubs took the House, Senate, and Presidency and decided that progressive radio talk shows constituted hate speech? Or progressive TV talk shows like Rachael Maddow, Big Ed, Lawrence ODonnell constituted hate speech? See where I'm going? Are you really sure you want to go down that slippery slope?
I sure as hell don't and I will fight any proposal to ban "hate speech"
I support the right to spew hate speech, I don't support the message, but I support someone's right to spew that message.











Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #25)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

37. Hate speech is not a relative matter.

Laws against hate speech are grounded in firm ethical/philosophical/moral predicates and can be derived from reason.

So far I have yet to see one civilized country for example consider pro-choice pamphlets "hate speech" or supporting marriage equality "hate speech".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 11:27 PM

8. U.S. Constitution grants the right to freedom of and from religion.

Muslim countries recognize the supremacy of one religion and the government/citizens accept varying degrees of theocracy. Each need to respect the practices of the other within their own countries. But, their rights to enforce the supremacy of a religion or no religion and all points in between do not extend beyond national/regional borders. Religion does not spread by decree but by its appeal to those willing to hear the message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:08 AM

15. No, it "grants" NOTHING.

 

It PROTECTS the naturally existing Right from being interfered with by the government.

Very large diference between the two concepts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:08 AM

22. Your reply shows you have a different concept of 'natural' from some others

Can you point to this "naturally existing Right" in nature, rather than in some American national documents, or disputed philosophical works? Someone religious might point to their 'god-given rights' in their holy book, which can include the obligation to punish those who blaspheme, and say that is what is 'natural'.

Really, 'grants' is the better way to put it. The USA decided what are basic rights in the nation, and said they're a fundamental part of the country. But it didn't find them in nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:50 AM

26. The exceptional ability of humans to use language distinguishes us from all other species

 

All restrictions on that capacity are artificial. The natural right to free speech flows from our natural ability to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #26)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:41 PM

80. If one is mute or autistic would they have a right to free speech

if they cannot speak? The Soviet Union and other similar totalitarian/authoritarian governments did not allow free speech. Perhaps I am missing your point but being able to speak does not mean one can speak openly in society. Believe "free speech" means more than just ability to speak. Instead, means more the right to express one's opinions, thoughts without being punished by authorities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #80)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:19 PM

86. Mute and autistic people do have at least part of normal human capacity to use language

 

I have the right to play the violin even though I have absolutely no ability to do so proficiently. The government has no authority to tell me not to do so, but I would be laughed off stage if I tried. I still have the right.

The Soviet Union and other similar totalitarian/authoritarian governments did not allow free speech.

Here's how I look at it:

Soviet people had the natural human right of freedom of expression of their thoughts, but Freedom of speech was INFRINGED in the USSR.

African-Americans always had the natural human to freedom of movement everywhere in the USA, but their rights were INFRINGED in the time of slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:59 AM

33. So, our rights are allowed to us by government?

 

Ummm... hopefully I misunderstood you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:29 PM

38. I would say by society

and, in a republic/democracy, the expression of that society is the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:22 PM

87. But our foundation documents allow government to curtail our rights only through due process of law

 

All rights are assumed to exist except those that have been restricted by orderly, defined processes, all of which have avenues of recourse and redress.

The Ninth Amendment makes this abundantly clear, for people who for some reason don't instinctively get it:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #87)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:54 PM

89. No, there's nothing there about 'all rights'

It's about 'others', ie other rights that have not been listed. It does not say anything like "all rights are assumed to exist except ...". And, as I said in #81, that's another American document, not some universal human verity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #89)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:14 PM

93. It doesn't explicitly say all rights exist except those that have been restricted through due...

 

...process, but I believe that's exactly what it means.

And, as I said in #81, that's another American document, not some universal human verity.

What we have here is, I believe, the core difference between libertarian (note the lower case 'l') and authoritarian thought. Two different mind-sets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:12 AM

100. I'd say it's the difference between an American and a non-American outlook

Americans tend to think that the Constitution, including its amendments, has set out the situation for what human rights should be, and it cannot be improved on. Those of us outside the USA may not see it as a complete or infallible document (and I'd point out the late arrival of some crucial amendments around the time of the Civil War as evidence for that).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #89)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:20 PM

96. So we only have those Rights specifically listed?

 

Again, not according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Unless you're willing to give up abortion, and a lot of other stuff.

I'm not willing to do that... without one hell of a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #96)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:14 AM

101. I think rights can be listed outside a constitution as well as inside it

but to be a 'right' , they have to have been discussed in public and agreed upon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #101)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:07 AM

104. So, you don't have the right to get a tattoo unless it's been specifically discussed in public...

 

...and agreed upon?

To me that is exactly backwards. You have the right to get a tattoo UNLESS a restriction on tattoos has been imposed through public discussion, and due process. The Ninth Amendment!

We have some restrictions on tattoos here in California - They can legally be done only by licensed practitioners, and people under 18 need parental consent before getting one. Before those laws existed, anyone could create or receive tattoos without restriction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #104)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:40 AM

105. If there are age restrictions, then it doesn't sound like it's being treated as a natural right

A change in rights at 18 is completely artificial. Before the restricting laws were put in place, anyone in California could get a tattoo, but that's different from saying they had a natural right to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #105)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:44 AM

106. The age of majority of 18 is the result of a consensus decision by the people

 

Before that, people of all ages had the same unrestricted rights.

Before the restricting laws were put in place, anyone in California could get a tattoo, but that's different from saying they had a natural right to do so.

How is it different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #104)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:05 PM

109. It's a fundamental difference of opinion that we can't overcome..

In the US, the principle Nulla poena sine lege (best paraphrased as "everything which is not forbidden is allowed") applies.

In some countries, including Germany, it might as well be, "everything which is not allowed is forbidden".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed

The saying about the Germans is at least partially true. In discussion amongst German scholars of German Law an argument often found is that a juristic construction is not applicable since the law doesn't state its existence – even if the law doesn't explicitly state that the construction does not exist. An example for this is the Nebenbesitz (indirect possession of a right by more than one person), which is denied by German courts with the argument that §868 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, which defines indirect possession, doesn't say there could be two people possessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #109)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 12:35 PM

110. Thanks for the link and the new Latin expression I'd never heard before

 

I am strangely reminded of my favorite joke about European stereotypes. With all due respect:

In Heaven,

The French are the cooks,
The Swiss are the bankers,
The Italians are the lovers,
The Germans are the engineers, and
The British are the police.

In Hell,

The British are the cooks,
The Italians are the bankers,
The Swiss are the lovers,
The French are the engineers, and
The Germans are the police.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #22)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:53 PM

71. Explain the 9th Amendment


If we have no rights except those "granted" to us by the government, what does the Constitution mean when it says the Bill of Rights shall not be used to construe that we have no rights not granted to us in the Constitution?

The 9th Amendment states in very plain and simple language that we possess rights not granted to us by the government.

Mind you, that does not stop the Rightists from claiming otherwise. But they typically demonstrate an amazing talent at selective illiteracy. They can not read the 9th Amendment and can not get past a comma in the 10th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ieoeja (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:45 PM

81. It says there can be other rights

It says that the listing of some rights in the federal constitution doesn't mean there aren't others as well. It says nothing about them being 'natural'; but, more importantly, it's just an American document, not a proof of something about human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #81)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:56 PM

98. Actually, it says there ARE other Rights...

 

and sets the entire tone for not restricting Rights to merely those that enjoy being listed on legal documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:35 PM

78. Rather have my rights written in a document than to

rely on nature. One man's heaven is another man's hell and who is to say which way "natural rights" would fall. The Magna Carta spelled out the people's rights. The U.S. is a nation of laws and good luck arguing natural law in court. IMHO, better to have the Constitution and Bill of Rights and case law on your side than to argue your God given rights against society. the king, the government without anything written down to support them - the Ten Commandments notwithstanding. No writing is perfect. But, one can argue that natural rights means anything one wishes them to mean. Kings believed they ruled by divine right. So often one hears lawyers say: "If it isn't written down, it doesn't exist so get it in writing".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #78)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:19 PM

95. So, we have only those Rights that have been specifically listed in the Constitution?

 

There goes abortion...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kiranon (Reply #78)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:22 PM

97. Have you read the Magna Carta? Here's the first clause and a comment about the rest...

 

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

The first sentence is a strong affirmation that all rights exist in the absence of government.

The rest of it deals with essentially the scope of government authority, property rights, powers and responsibilities of barons, inheritance, and rules for specific situations.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/magnacarta.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:22 AM

10. considering how much hatred is spewed by the religionists, they have no claims here nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:46 AM

11. Good thing it's just the UN, or we might have to give a shit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trouble.smith (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 09:11 PM

92. Ha! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:52 AM

13. Interesting speculation

the article would indicate that Erdogan will be requesting this at thew UN but it fails to mention of course that Erdogan isn't there

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's U.N. Trip Reportedly Canceled

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan has cancelled a Sept. 22-25 trip to the United States where he was due to attend a U.N. General Assembly meeting, a source in his office said, citing an upcoming party congress and heavy work schedule.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/tayyip-erdogan-trip_n_1902799.html


also bothersome is the way the author of this piece chose to make this out as Obama's problem from the article

This has exposed a huge fault line in political philosophies," said Stewart Patrick of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations. "It may be irreconcilable."

The dispute puts Obama in a difficult position in the closing weeks of the presidential race. Although the president will stand firmly for 1st Amendment values, he needs to be careful in condemning the anti-Muslim video so as not to sound an apologetic note that would draw political fire from his adversaries.

The White House was hoping Obama could use his U.N. address to show how his administration's support for democratic movements in the Arab Spring and greater engagement with the Muslim world overall have improved America's international standing after a decade of war in Muslim nations.

Instead he faces a jarring reminder of the anti-American riots in about 20 nations and the storming of the U.S. Consulate in eastern Libya that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11. The White House last week described the heavily armed assault in Benghazi as a terrorist attack.


but I do find this defense of free speech to be commendable indeed, well free speech as long as it offends 'them'




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:56 AM

19. no, free speech whoever it offends.

do try and grasp that basic concept, hon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 07:22 AM

23. No, it doesn't say anything about Erdogan talking about this in person at the UN

It says the demand is coming from various leaders, including him, and he has declared and has called for things. So your point about him not being at the UN in person is irrelevant. Countries don't have to have their head of government physically present to debate or vote at the UN.

And I can't see why it bothers you that the author pointed out it puts Obama in a difficult position. Do you think that current Middle Eastern diplomacy is going swimmingly?

Who is your snarky "free speech as long as it offends 'them'" aimed at?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:01 PM

34. yes indeed the article did nicely tie Erdogan and Morsy to Ahmadinejad didn't it ?

and as I pointed out the article gave the impression but did not explicitly say Erdogan was at the UN, IMO the article put a bit too much emphasis on how bad this all was looking for Obama and as to free speech well would you approve of ni**er being used in reference Black person or fa**ot being used in reference to Gays, and what if either responded violently to that?

my point is that the hate speech we approve or disapprove of is selective, as long as it is used against 'the other' it is free speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:39 PM

43. Would I approve of it

 

No, Fuck NO, I would condemn the words and the speaker, but I would approve of the fact that we have to right to utter the hateful words w/o fear of govt. reprisal.
Now if someone utters those words while committing a crime against such person, then it becomes a hate crime with poss. penalty enhancement upon conviction, which I do support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:52 PM

47. ummm there already is government reprisal of a sorts against that

we call it hate speech laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #47)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:56 PM

48. No thers's not

 

you can't be arrested for uttering hate speech, but you can be arrested for a hate crime, which are two different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:03 PM

49. but one can indeed be fined or sued for using hate speech

you need not go to the most extreme

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:23 PM

53. Only if that hate speech results in physical harm

 

to the victim of the hate speech, the mere utterance of the words is not an actionable offense. You can try to sue civilly, but your chances of winning are minimal and if you do get a judgement, it will most likely be overturned on the grounds of 1st Amendment protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:49 PM

58. really I suggest you rethink that or what would happen if one called a Black co-worker ni""er

my prediction job loss and a law suit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:58 PM

61. I said if the words caused physical harm to the victim.

 

If I called someone that offensive word and they attacked me, guess who would be arrested? It wouldn't be me, it would be the attacker.
The words may cause mental anguish, but that's not physical harm or a reason, by law, to physically attack someone.
I've been called all kinds of vile names that are offensive to me, but I sure as hell didn't arrest anyone for the words, but I have arrested plenty of people for calling me hateful names and then attacking me. Big difference there wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, when I say "actionable offense", I meant legal actionable offense. Hope that clarifies what I meant.

I can't arrest anyone for calling me a MF Pig, but I can detain or arrest if it's followed up by a physical act that puts my safety in jeopardy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:02 PM

62. your a Police officer? what city?

but mental anguish would be a basis for a law suit along with intimidation

eta the Police in the 2 cities I have spent most of my adult life in Mpls and St Paul embrace their right to use the term ni**er with some frequency albeit the former more than the latter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:09 PM

63. You can sue for just about anything you want

 

but the chances of winning a lawsuit on the grounds of mental anguish for calling someone an offensive word is just about nil.

I never reveal what city I'm a cop in, just my privacy thing, however, I will say the I'm a cop in MO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:23 PM

65. well for your own health

I would hope a small town and not St Louis or Kansas City

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:26 PM

66. Why?

 

I don't understand what you're getting at?
If I am a cop in either of those cities, what would the problem be? Are you maybe hinting that I'm a racist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #66)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:19 PM

74. No I've known people from both cities

and from what I understand both and St Louis in particular are quite violent that is what I meant it is indeed safer to be a suburban or rural cop than an inner city one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #74)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 05:23 PM

85. Ok

 

I got it, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #58)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:15 PM

64. Definitely minimum suspension, poss. job loss

 

but if I said it on my own time, then the lawsuit would fail, however, if I said it on the job, then the possibility of a charge of oppression under the color of law may apply.

Regardless, I have and never would use those terms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #64)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:34 PM

69. okay I believe you but in the case of Mpls

in the late '90's I was living in an apertment in South Mpls my neighbor and friend was getting beat up by her boyfriend he threw her into the wall hard enough to knock the stuff hanging on my common wall down and then from what I could hear started hitting her, I called the police (911) he left seconds before they got there but I was there by that time, when the police questioned her she's White and she described her boyfriend as being a Black male the officer retorted "well you love ni**ers so much, this is what you get, call us again and we'll find something to charge you with" and that is only one example where Mpls is concerned I could go on for a couple pages

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #69)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:43 PM

70. Well I can assure that I'm not like that

 

I treat all people as equals regardless of race, religion, ethnic background. I don't go for the racists crap from my officers, I'm a LT. with appox. 30 officers under my command, African American, asian, caucasian, even a couple of American Indians and I expect from them the same standards as mine are and I won't hesitate to forward a complaint to IA. Hope that's clear enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #70)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:14 PM

72. yes it is and I am aware that not every Police department is like Mpls

I've heard they (Mpls) have kind of a reputation of sorts that goes beyond MN

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #34)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:23 AM

102. Re. Hate speech

That's why we have our UK laws against that. Laws which seem to be despised here on DU..

Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening, abusive or insulting, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:30 PM

39. well despite the author of this articles gloom concerning Obama

it seems the US POTUS has come out of this quite beautifully

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014244315

however before I made my prior comment I did some investigating of this journalist to get a feel for him let's take a look at another of his writings this one concerning Mitt Romney's remark about Palestinians, he was a bit more shall we say forgiving or sympathetic

Romney's perspective is similar to that of many Israelis, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and of many conservative foreign policy experts in the United States.

Opinion polls show a majority of Israelis and Palestinians say they favor peace through creation of an independent Palestinian state, but they don't believe the other side will make necessary sacrifices and don't expect a deal any time soon.


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/19/nation/la-na-romney-mideast-20120919

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:28 AM

31. Well, if you base censorship on who gets offended, it's bound to be subjective. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bemildred (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:08 PM

36. indeed it is subjective and based on Western standards too

which we expect everyone to adhere to apparently but reality says it doesn't work out all too well, as we are seeing and actually have been for quite some time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:37 PM

41. So what exactly is the Muslim standard? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:51 PM

46. I actually don't know but at this point it seems to surround blasphemy or antiIslam

but is there something you would wish to add?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:38 PM

56. If their standard is the only option, I will pick western standards.

given the choice between individual freedom and the mob, I will always pick individual freedom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:47 PM

57. how high minded of you I will pick my standards over theirs everytime

truly a way to promote mutual understanding and respect I hand it to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:29 PM

67. Individual freedom versus the mob - not a hard choice

now perhaps there are better third choices but between the two on the table it is not a hard choice.

Where do you stand on blasphemy laws? Do you like them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #67)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:16 PM

73. who is the 'mob'?

and as far as I know this country has no blasphemy laws but if I was visiting a country that did I would follow them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #73)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:26 PM

76. Those violent mobs all over the ME

we are talking about international blasphemy laws - there is no place for them. I will not give Muslim nations veto power over my civil rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 02:31 PM

68. Yeah, I just think we'd have better luck if we had a better argument.

"you should be like us because our way is better" always meets a lot of resistance for some reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:16 AM

28. Note to religious people, you do not have a right not to be offended.

Go read up on the Enlightenment and don't start squawking until you learn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:25 AM

30. They're wrong.

 

You can choose what you hold sacred.

You cannot choose what everyone else must hold sacred.

We need to start hammering back on nonsense like this. We find their lack of tolerance and freedom of expression to be far more offensive than any blasphemy.

Change to suit our beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:38 PM

42. Obama's response at the UN on freedom of speech

I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

More broadly, the events of the last two weeks speak to the need for all of us to address honestly the tensions between the West and an Arab World moving to democracy. Just as we cannot solve every problem in the world, the United States has not, and will not, seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad, and we do not expect other nations to agree with us on every issue. Nor do we assume that the violence of the past weeks, or the hateful speech by some individuals, represents the views of the overwhelming majority of Muslims– any more than the views of the people who produced this video represent those of Americans.

However, I do believe that it is the obligation of all leaders, in all countries, to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism. It is time to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.

That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won’t create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy’s promise.

Understand that America will never retreat from the world. We will bring justice to those who harm our citizens and our friends. We will stand with our allies and are willing to partner with countries to deepen ties of trade and investment; science and technology; energy and development – efforts that can spark economic growth for all of our people, and stabilize democratic change. But such efforts depend upon a spirit of mutual interest and mutual respect. No government or company; no school or NGO will be confident working in a country where its people are endangered. For partnership to be effective, our citizens must be secure and our efforts must be welcomed.

A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

The impulse towards intolerance and violence may initially be focused on the West, but over time it cannot be contained. The same impulses toward extremism are used to justify war between Sunnis and Shia, between tribes and clans. It leads not to strength and prosperity but to chaos. In less than two years, we have seen largely peaceful protests bring more change to Muslim-majority countries than a decade of violence. Extremists understand this. And because they have nothing to offer to improve the lives of people, violence is their only way to stay relevant. They do not build, they only destroy.

It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. We cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/25/1136185/-Transcript-of-President-Obama-s-address-to-the-UN-General-Assembly-as-prepared-for-delivery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:43 PM

44. Very, very powerful and eloquent

 

If there was any doubt out his re-election, this speech just put to bed those doubts.
Well done, Mr. Pres., very well done.

Freepers heads today:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 01:51 PM

59. Wow .. best speech ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pampango (Reply #42)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 08:39 PM

88. Thank You

Something to work towards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:22 PM

75. Awesome! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:49 PM

84. How about "international curbs" on executing people for being gay?

Perhaps some international curbs on stoning people to death for adultery?

How about some curbs on beating women up in the street for being "immodestly dressed"?

Some things should certainly be curbed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:25 AM

108. Bull Shit!

 

How much "freedom" was accorded those sitting Berrkleley students who got pepper-sprayed, like the cop was killing bugs with Raid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Original post)

Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:01 PM

111. Freedom of speech is the fundamental human right

Without it, no other rights are possible. Anyone who supports "international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred" can go fuck themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread