At U.N., Muslim world questions Western freedom of speech

[dkf]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Muslim leaders were in unison at the United Nations this week arguing that the West was hiding behind its defense of freedom of speech and ignoring cultural sensitivities in the aftermath of anti-Islam slurs that have raised fears of a widening East-West cultural divide.

A video made in California depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a fool sparked the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies in many Islamic countries and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan this month. The crisis deepened when a French magazine published caricatures of the Prophet.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy," he told the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Friday.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88R1JI20120929?irpc=932

[msongs]

1. bullies and thugs of islam (and other religions) are afraid of free speech nt

[loli phabay]

2. thanks for the concern, i think i will stick with free speech all the same.

[cali]

3. This alas is an unbridgeable gulf.

[Recovered Repug]

4. Perhaps it's the Muslim leaders who are hiding behind "cultural sensitivities"

to suppress free speech.

[eqfan592]

24. You hit the nail right on the friggin head. (nt)

[zellie]

25. You may be right.nt

[rock]

35. You are right + LOL

You hit a whole bag o' nails right on the head!

[Dawson Leery]

38. Middle eastern Islamic nations are at the forefront of suppression of freedom.

Unless you are a Muslim, you have no rights.

[Quantess]

50. Unless you are a male muslim, you have no rights.

And even in that case, it seems like life is cheap. It's all about the afterlife.

[RKP5637]

51. Exactly!!! n/t

[JDPriestly]

79. Precisely.

When Muslims accept Christians without rioting in front of churches, banning Bibles and punishing those who convert from Muslim to Christian, then maybe we can discuss how free speech actually supports the freedom of religion.

The only reason that oddball made the movie about the Muslim religion was that he knew it would anger Muslims. If you don't parade your excessive sensitivity about religion, if you don't think of it as proof of your virtue but rather as proof of your own prejudice against the religious beliefs of others, then "insulting" movies will not bother you that much.

The Muslim world has lived in relative isolation when it comes to contact with people of other faiths. The West has had a slightly longer time to get used to the fact that not everyone is Christian or Catholic or Protestant or a believer in one of our traditional religions.

The Muslims will get used to it. Give them time.

We criticize American exceptionalism. Well, Muslim exceptionalism is just as big a mistake.

[X_Digger]

116. Well, historically the muslim world was more tolerant than the christian one..

I would much rather have been a Christian in Baghdad than a Muslim in Wales in 1218.

See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Funny how things change.

[JDPriestly]

117. Sorry, but we see too many exiled Christians and Jews from Muslim countries in LA.

And I even saw them in France as early as in the 1960s.

I disagree with what you are saying. Ask a Coptic Christian in Egypt how safe he feels.

[X_Digger]

121. I think you missed the point..

Back in history, say pre-1600 AD, the roles were reversed. It was christianity that was killing people for non-conformity.

But yes, that changed.

[Missycim]

125. Lets keep it within a 500 year span please

lol I am sure Christians were bad over a 1000 years ago.

[JDPriestly]

132. But the Jews have been the victims always -- whether the persecution was by Muslims or by Christians

That is the fact that anti-semitic, anti-Jewish people who are in denial even about their own anti-semitism and anti-Jewishism refuse to acknowledge.

People who are anti-Jewish always deny it, always. It's the nature of the beast. People who are anti-Jewish are offended by people who insist on being true to themselves and different.

Native Americans are similarly told to assimilate or else. It's the same game.

[hifiguy]

97. Bingo! nt

[NCTraveler]

128. +1

[pampango]

5. Democracy and free speech are popular in the Middle East, but most draw a line

between free speech and hate speech (or speech that incites violence) in a different place than most Americans would.

From Pew polling in several Middle Eastern countries:





http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/

[Bucky]

114. Except many seem to think critical cartoons are "hate speech"

I won't defend the bigoted film (I still haven't seen it), but the attitude that they can be in favor of free speech except for the speech they're offended by is pretty laughable.

[davidn3600]

6. Do they really think they will get anywhere with this argument?

They can whine and riot all they want. The first amendment will not change.

[bemildred]

7. It's a good argument, long overdue.

We prohibit "hate speech", it's going to be a hard sell that hate only occurs on one side.

[davidn3600]

8. Hate speech is not banned in the United States, nor should it be

What gives a government the right to control what we say or what we think?

Are we going to start banning every type of speech because someone's feelings are hurt? We will have nothing left of the first amendment if we do that.

[cali]

9. huh? where did you get the idea that the U.S. prohibits hate speech?

n the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.[55][56][57][58]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

As for hate occurring only on one side, that's absurd. There's plenty of hate in the media in Arab and Muslim majority countries.

[bemildred]

10. The usual American narcissism I see:

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

There are lots of hate speech laws. It's a very confused area.

[hack89]

11. It is not confused in America

from your link:

In the United States, hate speech is protected as a civil right (aside from usual exceptions to free speech, such as defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words).[54] Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States; the United States federal government and state governments are forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.

[bemildred]

12. Please the subject line see post #10. I was not talking in particular about the USA.

Neither are the speakers mentioned at the UN. They are talking about how free we in "the West" feel to bash muslims just because they are muslims, and it is a big problem. They are not going to give much credence to our concerns unless we clean up our act too.

[cali]

15. please see this in your post #7:

"We prohibit hate speech"

[bemildred]

17. Right, and you assume I must mean the USA, despite the fact that

the mentioned speakers clearly do not, they talk about "the West", there is no explicit mention of the US in the OP.

[cali]

19. yes, I assumed that the "we" was referencing the U.S.

Why would you reference Europe, for example, when many countries there do have laws against hate speech?

In any case, you hardly made it clear what you were referencing, and as I noted it makes little sense to reference "the west".

[bemildred]

21. It is precisely because Europe has such laws that they must be the referent of the speakers.

Or mine.

Unless you assume the speakers are ignorant or dumb.

I can tell you right now that you underestimate Mr. Morsi at your peril, he is no loudmouth lightweight like Ahmadinejad.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. "you underestimate Mr. Morsi at your peril, he is no loudmouth lightweight"

whatdaheck

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Blatant backpedaling is deeply offensive to the Deity I believe in.

You are blaspheming, and as such I want you immediately arrested under these myriad "hate speech" laws you were insistent the US has...

... until you were shown to be utterly, completely and wholly wrong.

[bemildred]

95. Heh.

I prefer to think of it a breaking out into the larger world outside, being less provincial.

But yes, pummel me with those non-existent laws, beat me around the head and shoulders, forty lashes with the cat. Yes! Yes! I've been wrong, wrong, wrong, all my life, and FINALLY it's caught up with me and it's just too late.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Hey, at least you admit it.

That puts you in the cream of the DU crop, in my book.

A lot of people here would sooner gnaw off their own feet than say "okay, I was wrong". So, cool.

[bemildred]

109. Yep, this is really important, isn't it?

"What will people say?"

[hack89]

16. In turn shall they be required to change Sharia law to respect other religions?

in many Muslim states being a christian is a crime - why is that acceptable?

It is pure rank hypocrisy on their part. If they want respect for their religion then they can be a example and respect other religions.

[bemildred]

18. Absolutely, they should respect other religions, why would you expect an exception for them?

We need to make that case to them too. We have a good argument too. Let's talk it out.

[hack89]

20. As long as the Constitution is respected

I have no problem with conversation.

[bemildred]

23. +1. nt

[dkf]

28. We are also free to bash Christians, especially evangelicals

and those who don't believe in dinosaurs.

[bemildred]

29. Bashing is very popular all around.

I slip into it myself easily enough. People like to vent. But it's still usually a bad idea.

[dkf]

30. How's about bashing most major religions for their attitudes towards homosexuality?

Or their attitudes towards women?

Burkas, no schooling, not being able for a woman or man to touch if they aren't married (some Orthodox Judaism), keeping women out of the areas designated for men, religions are rife with sexism and anti-homosexuality.

Is it a bad idea to bash those practices?

[bemildred]

33. Are we bashing the practices or the religions?

Practices, by all means. Religions as such, not a good idea.

[dkf]

36. Good grief how long have you been around here?

[bemildred]

37. A while. nt

[dkf]

39. Yeah I know I was being facetious. My bad.

[bemildred]

42. Perhaps if you were more explicit about what's on your mind?

I'm grabbing at straws here. I have the feeling that we are not talking about the same things, but no idea why.

[cleanhippie]

102. By bashing, you mean criticizing, right? Ideas NEED to be criticized, and religion is just an idea.

And bad ideas get bashed.

Religion should get no special protection from criticism, wouldn't you agree? If not, why?

[bemildred]

110. Something tells me you don't like religion much. That's not an argument I want the other side of.

However, I will say that I think the issue is more complicated than the way you lay it out. I think freedom of religion is a good thing, an important human right, even though I'm not religious myself, and I'm not willing to infringe it casually or simply because for one reason or another I think they are wrong. Generally I'm willing to interfere with religion when in infringes other important human and political rights, and not otherwise.

[Humanist_Activist]

118. The problem is you equate "bashing", "criticizing", "blasphemy" etc. with infringement...

no religion, no idea, is above being bashed, they do not, nor should they be afforded any protection from criticism, no matter how distasteful. No infringement of religious freedom is taking place here.

[bemildred]

123. The point is it's none of your business unless they are violating somebodies rights,

or breaking the law.

[Humanist_Activist]

134. Shouldn't I determine whether its my business or not?

I'm going to start to openly bash your opinions on this subject because it violates somebodies rights, mine. Really, what a vile opinion it is, why are you on a board that values democracy and free speech when you believe in neither?

[bemildred]

137. That would depend on what "it" is, wouldn't it? And that would be your opinion, wouldn't it?

Some things are your business and some things are not. Or do you consider that anything is your business, and that all of your business is everybodies elses business too.

[cherokeeprogressive]

45. The subject line in post #10 says "The usual AMERICAN narcissism I see..."

[bemildred]

46. Very observant. nt

[JDPriestly]

81. Trust me. Many Muslims bash Christianity too. They won't admit it, but they feel their religion

is quite superior.

Many Muslims brag about praying 5 times a day. In many very religious Christian homes, families pray when they get up, when they go to bed and before each meal. Count that. It's 5 times a day. Nothing all that special about the Muslim 5-times-a-day prayer except that they do them in public and loudly. In America, people do them quietly, at home, alone or with their families.

Let's all try to learn about the religions of other people. It increases understanding and appreciation. There are overly proud people in all religions -- the ones that think they have all the answers.

[bemildred]

96. Yes. nt

[cali]

14. lol. Sorry, it's not even remotely a confused area of the law.

that article is about hate speech in general. Scroll down and you can read what I posted from the article which is about hate speech in the U.S. That is what we are talking about. You made an erroneous claim. Now, I realize that you pride yourself on being right, but in this instance, you're simply not. There is NO legal prohibition on hate speech in the U.S. beyond the exceptions noted in the article. And under the 1st Amendment it's virtually impossible to make such speech illegal. It won't happen under a Conservative Supreme Court. It won't happen under a liberal one. And the 1st Amendment is certainly in no danger of being changed.

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freespeech/tp/Hate-Speech-Cases.htm

[zellie]

13. "There's plenty of hate in the media in Arab and Muslim majority countries"??

I guess being a victim will do that to you.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. Hate speech is directed at people, not beliefs...

If someone says that all Muslims should be deported from their respective country, that would be illegal under most jurisdictions with hate speech legislation. But saying that the Prophet Mohammad was a pedophile, or that Islam is misogynistic, isn't hate speech.

[Behind the Aegis]

75. THANK YOU!

It is really the basic concept of discussing ideas, not people. Religions, ALL religions, are nothing more than ideas, similar to capitalism, Marxism, or even something as mundane as extreme couponing. The line gets crossed when the adherents are "attacked" or otherwise maligned.

[bemildred]

99. I agree. (Although that boundary is not always sharp, and people will mix the two.)

I tend to rely on intent when I can determine it. It's an insult because it is intended as an insult, or that makes it more of an insult than an un-intended one. But then also, are we attacking people or ideas, and are we clear about it, that is a very important part of "hate speech".

[Humanist_Activist]

120. People don't have a right to not be offended, and relying on intent is foolhardy...

who cares about intent except when a crime takes place? Why should that be a determining factor in determining what is free speech? We already have it going too far in Europe, we don't need to import these problems to the United States.

[bemildred]

122. "People don't have a right to not be offended"?

Are you sure? If you really want to assert that, I am done talking to you.

I'm saying you need both, intention is definitely part of it.

The EU is not so much going too far as thinking in a muddled and simple minded way about the problem. It is not a simple problem.

[Humanist_Activist]

135. Yes I'm sure, why free speech is so difficult a concept for you to grasp I will never understand.

[bemildred]

138. Do people have a right to not be offended or not?

Do you think you can tell people how they are supposed to feel? Just sort of order them to feel the way you choose?

[glacierbay]

130. But not in the US

saying all Muslins should be deported from their respective country, while a vile statement, is protected under the 1st Amendment in the US.

[Humanist_Activist]

133. Actually you are right, I used a thoughtless example...

my only excuse is that it was late at night and I was tired. Should have used an example that leads to immediate danger, such as inciting a crowd to burn down a mosque, or some other example.

[glacierbay]

136. No problem. nt.

[2ndAmForComputers]

22. If they ally with out local Christian extremists... I'm not so sure anymore.

[treestar]

26. Well they are behind us on that

They ought to learn about it themselves, and look at the problems lack of it causes. And take a chill pill. There are many irreligious people in the world and they'll have to adjust to that in the modern world.

[Arctic Dave]

27. In the US hate speech is protected,

in the Middle East we kill you with a predator drone if we don't agree.

So yeah, there is a little bit of bias.

[cpwm17]

41. Good answer

and it seems that many of these alleged free-speech advocates are fine with the drones and US rampages throughout the ME. Out of sight; out of mind.

Free speech is for everyone. Hate speech laws are blasphemy laws.

[Hippo_Tron]

64. Umm we kill you with a predator drone if you're involved with Al Qaeda

That's little different than if we just disagree with you.

[Arctic Dave]

65. So talking about AQ is enough to kill them?

Not really free speech is it?

Should we kill all of repug radio. They say the same things.

[Hippo_Tron]

111. Umm who's been killed for merely talking about Al Qaeda?

Generally one has to be involved with the organization.

[Vidar]

119. Being at the "wrong" wedding is reason enough for us to kill them.

[Quantess]

32. Freedom of Speech is one of the pillars of Democracy.

And as for "islamophobia"... violence does not help assuage that.

[cpwm17]

43. Shock and Awe

[Quantess]

44. Excellent point, so eloquent.

However, what about Danish cartoonists? What violence did Denmark ever inflict on the Muslim world?
It is not actually a direct equation, with the violence.

It really is about their religion being insulted.

[WinkyDink]

56. One of the major war crimes of the last century, and that's saying something.

[Odin2005]

34. The Muslim World needs to grow the fuck up...

...and quit throwing temper tantrums when somebody offends them.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. +1,000,000 n/t

[Bake]

107. Muslims get offended about as much as Republicans do.

And you know what we think about Republicans.

Bake

[Missycim]

126. How many Republicans

kill you if you if offend Christianity?

[Rex]

47. We can't be having any of that free speech stuff.

Commoners might start asking the wrong questions, then before you know it you end up with a secular hellhole like the USA.

[rollin74]

48. I'll side with freedom of speech over butthurt religious zealots

thank you very much

[jsr]

49. This Turkish foreign minister is an Islamist jackass

"Religion is a matter of conscience. One is always free to act according to the will of one's conscience. We (as a nation) are respectful of religion. It is not our intention to curtail freedom of worship, but rather to ensure that matters of religion and those of the state do not become intertwined." - Atatürk

[SomethingFishy]

52. Well I guess we need to kill more of them.

The hundreds of thousands we have killed so far hasn't seem to have done much good. THey are still complaining, still rioting, still burning American flags. Maybe we should bomb Iran, I'm sure that'll show those whining, crybaby, Muslims what Free Speech really stands for.

[Edweird]

53. "Islamophobia"? Nope. Not afraid. Fuck them and their bullying censorship.

If they don't want to see or hear certain things then they are free (pun intended) to go the route of China and filter their internet.

[WinkyDink]

54. Meanwhile, the Western World questions Muslimn world's treatment of women. (Mine does, anyway.)

[Scootaloo]

55. So, after seeing these threads every day for two weeks now, I have one question.

Since DU'ers are so adamant about defending the "free speech" of people who are dehumanizing Muslims... where is the equally vociferous support for the freedom of speech for David Irving? Unlike Pamela Gellar and the maker of this dumb film, Irving actually faces arrest charges in several nations for his exercise of speech.

So... where the fuck are your threads rallying for his freedom, DKF? Loli phabay, you could put one up, how 'bout it? Odin2005? How about you, chum? What? Not interested? C'mon guys, if we're going to support some asshole's absolute, unquestionable right to dehumanize others, we have to apply it equally! Not just to the ones who dehumanize Muslims.

If you're going to tell me, "oh, I don't support what's said, but I support the right to say it," then show it. Cook up a thread defending the right of an antisemitic holocaust denier to make his case in all instances. Not a post here, gimme a whole damn thread about it.

Or if you can't stomach that idea - can't blame you - how about you show to me that you disagree with what this film is saying?

'Cause so far as i can tell, there hasn't been anyone actually calling out and condemning the content of the film... except for its production quality. Which kinda tells me some DU'ers would watch blackface, so long as it was high def and had good effects.

[oberliner]

58. David Irving has published around 30 books

He continues to actively tour the United States giving lectures to various groups.

In the spring of 2011, he gave lectures in 30 cities around the United States about Heinrich Himmler.

More recently he has been traveling throughout Europe doing research on his latest book on Churchill.

I'm not sure he has been in the news recently to warrant a thread in LBN - whereas these speeches at the UN have been pretty widely covered.

[Scootaloo]

60. I'm glad you showed up, Oberliner.

Now you can regale us with your take on how Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has an absolute, unquestionable, goddamned RIGHT to speak hatred against gay people, Jews, and deny the Holocaust, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an american-hating fascist. It's pretty recent, so I'm sure you're up-to-date.

Go on. Stage is all yours.

[loli phabay]

85. id say that if he was covered by the 1st amendment then he could as long as he didnt advocate violen

but i also think when he talks that stuff then we ahve a right to call him out on it, the only problem is its not just talk with him he fronts a regime that actually acts on those hatreds so we have to look at their actions as well as their words and realise that when they tell us stuff they might not just be blustering.

[Scootaloo]

87. Again, we're talking about the UN, not the United States.

And again, Make a thread defending his right. A whole thread, not some milquetoast subthread post.

Shout it to the hills. Loudly proclaim your starry-eyed heart-warming belief that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has an absolute unquestionable right to spew all the hate he wants, as loudly as he wants. hell, maybe he's like Pam Gellar, and his right extends to a community having to provide forum for him to do so!

I'll wait for your new thread, loli. I understand Oberliner's not up to the challenge, but you've got the guts for it, right? Go for it!

[loli phabay]

88. lol i got a feeling that this is a set up, as i said he can say what he likes but i think hes a nut

we aint going to silence him in iran or at the UN, what i find interesting is the UN lets him get away with his shite when they dont have to let him do it. As ive said before i think hes a dangerous nut and we should listen to what he says as the regime acts on a lot of the hatred he spews. I think this is the line he does cross in that what he says actually puts people in danger of harm directly, while me drawing a cartoon of a religious leader having a piss can only be acted on.

[loli phabay]

92. lol where did you get i want to murder thousands of iranians

personally i want them to be free fro the nutters who rule their country and recently put down the peoples protests. I actually think you like the guy and what he says as I havent heard you talk about the regime getting deposed and supporting it. mayby you have but i havent seen it.

[NutmegYankee]

59. Has Irving been tried in the USA?

No? Then what the hell is your post about again?

The US does not ban hate speech, even from a Nazi lover like Irving.

[Scootaloo]

61. Are you paying any attention at all?

One, this is a thread about the UN. Keep up.

Two, no, Irving has not been tried in the US. Nor has Pam Gellar or this whatshisname dude behind Innocence of Muslims... but people are rallying for their rights to speech, DESPITE those rights not being in question. So I expect the same treatment to be extended to a Nazi lover like Irving just as certainly as it's extended to an Islamophobe like Gellar.

[NutmegYankee]

62. And obviously it is.

I don't condone what Mr. Irving says, but I defend his right to say it. Even considering that he is raging asshole.

[Scootaloo]

63. Nothing personal, but I don't buy that line.

"I don't condone their right to say it, but I defend their right to say it," while a nice sentiment, actually requires proof.

People don't condone the message sent by Pam Gellar, "Innocence of Muslims," and all this other shit? Okay, nice to say so, but where's hte evidence? Where are the threads condemning hte bigots? Where are the threads deriding hte content presented? A homophobe gets called out to the carpet and berated for their bigotry. Misogynists do. Antisemites do. White supremacists do. Islamophobs do not. At least, not on DU.

Defending the right to say it? Okay, I see constant posting of brand-new shiny threads defending the rights of Islamophobic bigots to speak their piece. Alright, they have that right... but where is the concerted, constant defense of the Phelpses, the David Irvings, and the Pat Buchanans of the world on DU? Why is it just the islamophobes that conjure such a rousing, full-throttle defense on DU?

Until i see either of these things, I consider people spouting "I don't condone their right to say it, but I defend their right to say it" as an inane catch phrase to just be using it as some sort of fig leaf.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Yet another case of your not seeing it because you can't or won't?

Or is it possible because you haven't been here long enough?

You have a star, which means you can do searches, both here and at DU2. Of course, there is also always Google. You will find a number of people who didn't care for the banning of a recent Hitler novel (or some such). I, myself, found myself on the hors of dilemma over that particular situation. The laws of Germany are not our laws; they have specific reasons for their bans, but in the end, stifling or hiding free speech will not work.

As for Phelps and his clan? Holy shit! There have been HUNDREDS of threads over the years about his protests of funerals, opening, candidates, and the like. There have been scores of threads about the "funeral laws" (basically forbidding him and others from being within a certain footage to the area). MOST will come out and say something like, "I don't condone his speech/actions, but I support his right to express them." Same goes for David Irving and "the Pat Buchanans." So, your assessment that it is just the islamaphobes that get a pass is absurd, but might explain why you whip around in these type of threads accusing people of bigotry and war-mongering.

I suggest you open your eyes, do a search on the names you listed, and read before you post again how anyone condemning the current battle against free speech is a secret Muslim and/or Arab hater!

ETA: Since our last exchange two more examples have croppe dup, neither from the dreaded pro-Israel type, conflating Jews and Israel. Do you need me to provide the locations of these posts?

[Scootaloo]

72. The problem is, there is no "battle," Aegis

If course, categorizing it as such has the benefit of portraying the people you are disagreeing with as violent, aggressive, "bad" people who need to be fought against, possibly even with lethal force, rather than human beings who are bringing a difference of opinion to a political forum designed for such disagreement.

It's a war, son! First the liberals came for Christmas! Now the Muslims are coming for our free speech! We've gotta beat them from our shores; we will defend our isle!

...Except that's not the case at all, as anyone with a lick of sense can see. Is whatshisname behind this film facing criminal charges for it? No, he's not. How about Pamela Gellar? Again, nope. Ann "Invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to christianity" Coulter? Again, nope. Daniel Pipes? Nope. Michelle Bachmann? Nope. A third of the I/P forum regulars? Nope! So while it's nice that you're engaged in the "battle for free speech," it's not especially clear who or what it is you're fighting against. It's the philosophical equivalent of calling yourself a militia so you have a "patriotic" excuse to get drunk in the woods and shoot at trees while bitching about "them dem ferriners."

I would think, given your posting habits, maybe you'd be more interested in tackling dehumanization of an entire group of people, instead of shadow-boxing a non-issue. Frankly I'd expect that of DU in general, but hey, what the hell, I guess.

[Behind the Aegis]

73. But there is a battle, Scootaloo.

It is one that denies that others who find this behavior outrageous, but still protected, have done so with other outrageous behaviors and statements, yet are being portrayed as anti-Muslim bigots. Your clever little witticism and sarcasm aside, it demonstrates you unwillingness to see the very thing you are denying, actually IS happening at DU. Free speech of all those you listed have been defended over and over again. There isn't this massive conspiracy of those who have a no problem with this YouTube clip (other than its bigoted nature), and the same people railing for the silence of Phelps, Buchannan, etc.

As for my posting habits, I have routinely defended free speech, while condemning what was said, but that includes addressing this type of nonsense.

[Scootaloo]

76. No, it's not a battle.

I'm not fighting against free speech. I'm fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry. Hell, if this shit of a film took aim at Islam rather than Muslims, I wouldn't even bother; ideas and people are very different things, after all.

Now you can mouth all the feel-nice, self-hug platitudes you want. Really, you can. And until I see some demonstration to go with sentiment, I'm going to hold that you're just full of shit. Saying "I don't agree" doesn't matter until you actually express disagreement. Which neither you, nor the majority of DU'ers shadowboxing this non-issue have chosen to do, despite ample opportunity. It's not "I haven't had a chance," it's "I refuse to do so." Instead there's these lukewarm "I don't agree's" blathered around, free of detail, context, or expression. It's a rote, meaningless statement, devoid of any thought other than "oh shit, where's my fig leaf?!"

Until then? You and the others are that person who proclaims to "stand with" a group, then mutely "stands by" when shit happens. I'm sure you know the sort.

[Behind the Aegis]

78. You claim to be fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry, but you aren't.

You are wildly lashing out in one personal attack after another against anyone who doesn't conform to YOUR specified needs. You made a conclusion that these arguments don't exist when it comes to other speakers. I told you what you need to do; it is obvious you didn't do it. I can only conclude is because you know it will likely fly in the face of your personal accusations against other DU'ers, myself included. You claim you are all about not wanting to see groups attacked, but have no issue what so ever attacking one DU'er after another with personal isults and claims they are "full of shit." Spin it anyway you want, you are engaging the very behavior you claim to be wanting to stop.

"I'm fighting against hypocrisy and bigotry." Uh-huh.

ETA: This thread isn't about that fucking film, it is about Muslim nations wanting to stifle free speech, lest you forget since you have gone so far off topic.

[Scootaloo]

80. You're right.

I have zero qualms about "attacking" DU'ers who demonstrate an inability to condemn the dehumanization of an entire category of humanity. I find myself getting frustrated when this simple "fucking duh!" sentiment which should just be a given on a site like this, seems to fall on deaf ears. I do not regard these as negatives, however, even though the group in question is an acceptable target on DU.

And thank you, I know what the thread is about. it's why I brought up David Irving, and his arrest warrants for antisemitism and holocaust denial. Those aren't those diabolical "Muslim nations," and you're not framing that situation as a "battle," yet unlike Whatshisface behind "Innocence" that asshole actually really is facing the possibility of arrest if he puts his foot on the wrong side of a border. Surely, there should bee daily threads posted by DU'ers crusading for his free speech rights? And I'm sure you, being one of them would happily kick one off; what do you say, Aegis, want to start up a "Free speech for David Irving!" rally on DU?

As for the issue itself... it's a difference of opinion. Some leaders of Muslim nations say "there oughtta be a law." Their statements are added to the minutes, they sit down, and that's it. Clearly this is a savage fight that we all have to knuckle down for over the long run... or.. .we could just realize that they are not the first group to make the same statement, to just about the same damn effect - nothing.

Like I said, your "battle for free speech" is meaningless, because there's nothing for you to be fighting against. While you choose to throw jabs and roundhouses at an imaginary opponent, you're also choosing ot ignore the dehumanization of an entire group of people who, I suppose, just don't ping on your radar?

[loli phabay]

86. i think the video is not about dehumanizing people its taking the piss out of their religion

much the same as happens every day on a thousand websites to every religion. I think the main story is the fact that people chose to react violently to it and the debate about whether people who think other religions are a load of shite should be alowed to take the proverbial piss out of them. whether its that Mohammad was a child molester, Jesus was married and rode a t rex, magical mormon underpants, whether jews wear clogs or witches make love naked in the park.

[Scootaloo]

89. See, if it were JUST "lol Mohammed was a dingbat" or something, I'd agree

But no. I mean it does do that, but it also has "modern" sequences where Muslims are axe-murdering rapists. And the apparent protagonist makes it clear that it's not "some Muslims are bad people," but rather it's "MUSLIMS ARE TERRIBLE THINGS!"

Think of the difference between "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" and... Say, Jud Suss.

The first skewers the Old Testament as an ahistorical, abominable, ludicrous document, an absolute wall-banging waste of vellum and papyrus, full of really idiotic ideas.
The second takes the people who believe the stuff in that the Old Testament... and portrays them as blood-thirty vermin, a plague on humanity that seek the downfall of Christendom.

You see the difference? Denigrating and demonizing ideas, however harshly, is one thing. Doing the same to the people is another.

[loli phabay]

90. and you know i probuably wouldnt like his movie and think hes a prick, but im not going to shut him

up, im going to look at him in the same way as the illinois nazis and just move on. What im not going to do is kill people or set fire to some other persons shit, the whole point of freedom is that sometimes people do shit that we dont like and we do shit they dont like. Other countries have their own values on free speech but as the guy is an american in america then he can pretty much say what he wants and thats a good thing.

[cthulu2016]

71. Denial

You have formed a delusional view of DU history and deny, for whatever reason, something everyone else recognizes are real history—the widespread, strident, prolonged and almost violent DU condemnation of the makers of "Innocence of Muslims."

Fortunately nobody is proposing throwing you in jail for promulgating that factually indefensible view.

[Scootaloo]

77. Show me.

Please, give me a demonstration of this irrefutable fact.

[JDPriestly]

82. My right to free speech guarantees that I can criticize homophobes, Holocaust deniers, racists,

anti-Muslim warmongers and all kinds of really nasty people who want to deprive others of their rights or falsify history.

But that same right to free speech, my right to free speech, does not permit me to deny them their right to free speech.

I can criticize the speech of people with whom I disagree. I can even say that they should not say what they say. But I cannot ask my government to punish them for exercising their right to free speech.

If I post a picture of Jesus in my yard so that my atheist neighbor can see it and my atheist neighbor reacts by violently setting his garage on fire, it cannot be said that I incited my atheist neighbor to violently burn his garage. It can only be said that my neighbor is a fool.

[Scootaloo]

83. You have the right, but apparently not the inclination.

Wonderful for you.

You'd rather spin in circles, assuring yourself you support their right to say gnarly shit when such a right is in no danger anyway, than actually criticize what they're saying. Oh, you totally would, if you weren't so busy twirling in place, but, you know... priorities, man.

[JDPriestly]

94. I have criticized and generously. That's what is right to do.

[NutmegYankee]

112. Probably has a lot to do with the fact that Mr. Irving doesn't kill people.

He spouts verbal diarrhea, but he doesn't riot and he doesn't kill people.

What you call Islamophobes are DUers who are disgusted at behavior, not race or ethnicity or faith. Speech, even disgusting hateful speech, is inherently nonviolent. You can provide more speech and show how awful the other guys position really is. That is not what happened in these riots.

And you can spare me the whining about faith. My family is German Protestant (Calvinist). My family fled their homeland due to religious violence hundreds of years ago. I know full well that Christians (and other faiths) are capable of this sort of violence. All I ask is that the Muslim world join us in tolerance for speech that offends them. The Western World did it. So can they.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. You don't seem to get it. Saying I support the First Amendment is a blanket statement.

I don't have to jump through any hoop you hold in front of me to show support for the First Amendment. Fuck a buncha that.

I support The First Amendment's guarantee of the right to freedom of speech. Period.

See how easy that was?

[Scootaloo]

70. Wonderful for you.

Too bad so many only express the notion for the benefit of Islamophobes whose rights are in no danger.

But hey. That's your right too, I guess.

[MNBrewer]

100. I know you can't post in this thread any more

as another of your attacks on this topic has been hidden here, but whose rights ARE in danger in your estimation?

[cthulu2016]

68. Anyone should have a right to deny the holocaust

Your petulant call-out is a very obvious attempt to get people to argue an even less popular position so that your reprehensible views will have more ad hoc support from whoever you are trying to appeal to.

And you seem to think that there is something difficult about defending the right to publish grossly inaccurate history, which is actually about the easiest possible case to make.

There cannot be an official history the adherence to which is enforced criminally by any government.

Any government is free to have an official history, of course. Schools teach about the real holocaust, as they should. They also (one hopes) teach that the world is billions of years old, and all sorts of other true stuff that a few crazy people don't believe.

It must not, however, use force to require that people believe it, or to prevent people from voicing disagreement.

And, ironically, one of the many things that points up the absolute moral and practical necessity that no government control by force what people think is the example of the Holocaust.

[JDPriestly]

84. You make a good point, cthulu2016.

There is an entire industry in the US that profits from denial of evolution -- a pretty well established historical fact.

No one tries to silence them. They enjoy the right to believe and state whatever nonsense they wish. And J.K. Rowling can publish books about magic and no one can object.

All kinds of books and movies that criticize Christianity or specific Christian groups have been written and published -- and become the bases of new religions.

And then there are the Mormons and the atheists and people with all kinds of diverse beliefs that are critical of people of other beliefs.

This fuss about prohibiting speech that offends this religion or that is unrealistic.

In the US where we have so many, many religions, each of which has its own odd beliefs and sensitivities, repressing speech that criticizes or ridicules the religious beliefs of others would be impossible.

[Vincardog]

57. When they allow women to drive cars alone, vote, talk to strange men and own their own businesses

I will be more receptive to their "concerns" and "questions".

[closeupready]

105. Should we give you a call? "Get back to [you]"?

How should we let you know they have finally earned their sovereignty in your (VERY humble ) opinion?

[Vincardog]

106. They are expressing desired actions to be taken by MY sovereign Government Please do get back to me

My opinion is that they should take care of their won house before they start telling me how to take care of mine.
What is your (VERY humble ) opinion?

[backscatter712]

69. Speaking of offending religious sensitivities... It's Blasphemy Day!

[MNBrewer]

101. I had a great Blasphemy day!

God dammit!

[backscatter712]

103. Christ on a cracker! I love Blasphemy Day! n/t

[WinkyDink]

124. Are we also allowed to mock Muhammad? Because he was a pedophile.

"According to the traditional sources, Aisha was six or seven years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad and nine when the marriage was consummated...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha

[backscatter712]

131. I see no problem with it!

Of course, there's a minority of crazy people that would want to saw your head off if you did, but that's not a majority of people, or even a majority of Muslims.

I personally was not raised to saw the heads off of people who offended me by mocking fictional characters.

[StarlightGold]

98. They can question it

all they want. It ain't changing.

[closeupready]

104. K&R - this thread has generated a lot of valuable speech.

Thanks for posting it.

[Bucky]

113. I don't think I'll be taking a lecture on ethnic hatred from Islamic fundamentalists today.

We're not, by the way, just protecting Islamophobia. We're protecting the fundies' right to argue back against that bigotry.

[Zalatix]

115. I have one thing to say to them.

(Not image-tagged because it might offend)

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/ 6176083/2/stock-illustration-6176083-middle-finger-salute.jpg

[Nye Bevan]

127. "I don't like what he says, but I defend his right to say it".

Whether it's Holocaust deniers, stupid Muhammed videos, "Piss Christ", Magic Underwear jokes, or someone claiming that Obama is the anti-Christ.

Why do so many DUers seem to have trouble with this concept? It's not a new idea.

[NCTraveler]

129. "Freedom does not mean anarchy"

That move in no way represented the ideology of anarchy. There response was much closer.