This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
How can you discuss something you refuse to see. You are one of the very few people who can not see any bias in the mainstream media outlets.
Haven't we already established that drawing the prophet is A) Not expressly forbidden by the Quran and B) Elicits a yawn from what you would call moderate or mainstream Islamists?I know you believe this, and your goal is admirable (though I remain convinced that this is NOT the goal of the people who organized this contest.) But your method is deeply flawed: drawing the cartoon, does not shrink down the number of radical Islamists; it increases their number.I would say its the responsibility of every human being, not just Muslims, to take action and speak out against any atrocity against our fellow man, Islamic terrorism being just one of many.
And what we can do is shine the high beams on barbaric ideologies in an attempt to drive them out of existence. Drawing a cartoon that causes sickos to come out of the woodwork with machine guns and explosives is a fantastic example of taking action and speaking out against a dangerous ideology that threatens civilized society.
What do you mean by "hate speech" here? Would it include ridiculous cartoons of Mohammed?
'Hate speech' seems to mean what ever offends the person or authority currently in power using the term, to define it to best serve current agenda. Shifting sands.
Yes. It seems clear to me that a majority of religious Muslims find cartoons of Muhammad to be offensive. I find any deliberate attempt to offend Muslims to be hateful, just as I would if it were Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists etc.
Fine question, and difficult for me to answer, which no doubt was your intent. Hate speech, like pornography, is very difficult to define yet not impossible either. Any discussion I have with you or any other reasonably intelligent libertarian on this subject is going to tie me up in knots. Any definition I offer will seem inconsistent to you, and that's fair enough. Keep in mind that I don't believe hate speech should be illegal, simply prohibited in certain public venues such as college campuses. (Therefore the previous question about the protest against Westboro is irrelevant since even if it was hate speech it should be allowed anyhow.)
I think the bolded is the strangest statement you've made on the subject. College campuses would seem to be a place to absolutely not prohibit any type of speech. For the most part, everyone on a college campus is an adult. If you had said public elementary schools or public parks, I'd have an easier time supporting you. College campuses seem like a really odd place to start prohibiting otherwise legal things.
lol thx
Refusing to grant a permit wouldn't be a violation of the 1st, and being cowardly or sensible isn't really relevant in the context of whether something is or should be Constitutional. Nor is our feeling on whether Geller is a tool or a hero.
Front:
Obviously they shouldn't be charged with murder but I don't think the contest organizers are without some level of responsibility. If someone ends up going on a rampage and a stray bullet strikes a child in nearby house, the organizers don't share, even on some small level, any responsibility for that death? This contest is similar to randomly picketing a neighborhood overwhelming populated by a certain race with racist picket signs all the while citing 1st amendment rights. 1st amendment or not the picketing has no purpose or than to incite. If someone baits violence to come to my street I don't think it's unreasonable to be upset with the people doing the baiting.
Between 1st Amendment and nothing in the Koran about depictions of Muhammad, this is much ado about nothing.
No, they don't imho. Now if they exercise their freedom of speech by shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and it resulted in people getting hurt, then yes. I'm not trolling or arguing just to argue here - I truly believe that freedom speech must be protected. And provocative, offensive speech must be protected the most.Willie Neslon said:
Nobody is saying it's ok to start killing people because you're offended. Nobody is saying their freedom of speech shouldn't be protected.
I am too...but jeeze. This is just stupid. Not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it, just that it's stupid in a Westboro Baptist sort of way.
Their FB page is blowing up.
Upside: violence is demonstrated to be an ineffective tool for forcing one's religious beliefs on others.
ISIS said so themselves. Well, that they have "71 trained" fighters ready to go at any moment. Could be dozens more "untrained" at the ready as well.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
Salman Rushdie getting stabbed today may have outed one.
