Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[untermensche]

They should be strongly discouraged by reasonable people and their actions should be called what they are, incitement to violence.

Being gay in Iran should be called what it is: incitement to violence.

What else can the State do except hang these men by the neck until they are dead? They know being gay will provoke the State into murder, yet they do it anyway.

Those are of course Iran's problems to work out.

They are not the problem of US anti-Muslim bigots.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Back then did everyone rule by the fear that he'd murder your children?

Well, there are places even now that use punishment of a criminal's family (like bulldozing their house down) as an attempt to deter crime. Or maybe it's simply for the satisfaction of retribution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow, will you ever answer the question??!!!

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

Since you clearly do not support the First Amendment why don't you leave the US and give up your citizenship as you disagree with one of our cornerstones.

It has been repeatedly explained to you how this is not a case of yelling fire in the theater unless Islamists are really just animals that can't moderate their responses.

And if they are animals--you destroy dangerous animals. Since they are loose in society they pose an immediate threat--shooting them upon identification would be an appropriate response. That's not really what you want, is it?

 

[dismal]

I am curious about untermensche's answer to my question because the "yelling fire in a movie theater" is generally understood to be an example of speech that should not (necessarily) be protected by the First Amendment. I am simply asking if he thinks the same thing is true about the act of drawing and publishing the cartoons in the OP, and what should be the legal ramifications for the offenders. Did they commit a felony? A misdemeanor?

The reason you can't (falsely) yell fire in a crowded theatre has nothing whatever to do with the content of the speech. It's because it can falsely create a dangerous panic.

The government may place reasonable and narrowly tailored time, place and manner restrictions on speech.

The government may not restrict speech based on content.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If the standard is to judge what is acceptable by its affect on fragile and hypersensitive minds, then obviously you'd agree making fun of Britney Spears is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. There should be laws against it.

Not just fragile and hypersensitive minds but minds made that way by massive US unjustified aggression.

All actions must be looked at with the idea of reasonable expectations.

And if your actions endanger others, and a reasonable person would expect your actions would endanger others, then your actions are not justified.

No. Plenty of cases where your actions endanger others are perfectly legal. It comes down to the nature of the threat--you are not allowed to do anything that poses an unavoidable threat but many actions are permitted where the actual risk involves someone responding inappropriately to the hazard you created.

For example, you're allowed to drive down the freeway even though you pose an extreme threat to any pedestrian out there on the freeway. This is permitted because proper behavior is that said pedestrian doesn't go out there unless he's ensured it's safe to do so.

You accept the inappropriate behavior of the Islamists as unavoidable--you continue to argue they are animals.

 

[bilby]

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

Since you clearly do not support the First Amendment why don't you leave the US and give up your citizenship as you disagree with one of our cornerstones.

Actually, he has the absolute right to disagree with any or all of the cornerstones of the US if he so chooses, and to remain both a resident and a citizen.

He is granted that right by the First Amendment to your constitution.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Islamists have been trying to set up a Caliphate since the Muslim Brotherhood was founded back in 1928. What makes you think the Syrian civil war wouldn't have happened without Iraq invasion, and that some version of ISIS wouldn't have set up shop in the chaos of that war?

Of course, you seem not to care one whit for the millions of muslim lives that have been destroyed by other muslims. They weren't destroyed by the US after all.

I talk about what actually exists and why.

ISIS exists because of the massive act of US terrorism called the invasion of Iraq.

You don't get to cheer for the senseless attack of millions and then also get to cry about the result.

Once again you are arguing that Islamists are animals.

- - - Updated - - -

ISIS exists because of the massive act of US terrorism called the invasion of Iraq.

Prove it. Prove that no Caliphate would've been set up anywhere in the ME without Iraq war.

Hint: You'll need a flux capacitor. Bin Laden was trying to set one up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How exactly does this justify further US crimes committed against the Iraqi people?

Hussein was helped to power by the US. His worst crimes were committed with US weapons and US consent. He gassed the Kurds with US helicopters and chemicals and the US responded by removing Iraq from the list of States involved in terrorism so the US could sell Hussein more weapons. He invaded Iran with the consent and urging of the US with US weapons as well.

None of this justifies an unprovoked invasion that resulted in the deaths of about one million people.

...The average civilian deaths after US invasion was _lower_ than average civilian deaths while Saddam was in power. This is just a fact.

This is only if we completely ignore the principles the US spelled out at Nuremberg.

The principle the US used to execute Germans after WWII was that all crimes that arise as a result of an unprovoked invasion were the responsibility of the invading nation.

Morally the US is responsible for ALL civilian deaths that occurred and still occur in the region as a result of that immoral invasion.

Check his timeline. The deaths you are trying to blame on the invasion came before the invasion.

Also, you're assuming our actions were the only actions in Iraq. Most of the deaths in Iraq were due to ethnic cleansing sponsored by other outside powers. You don't get to blame us for those.

 

[untermensche]

I thought I was clear.

I do not defend the right of a few bigots to endanger others by doing something not very different in principle from yelling fire in a crowded theater.

I do defend the right of bigots to speak as long as it is only themselves put in danger.

Since you clearly do not support the First Amendment why don't you leave the US and give up your citizenship as you disagree with one of our cornerstones.

You are under some delusion that the First Amendment is an absolute protection.

That is naive.

There are limitations on speech if it endangers others, yelling fire in a crowded theater is the classic example.

This is not too much for most to comprehend.

 

[untermensche]

Check his timeline. The deaths you are trying to blame on the invasion came before the invasion.

Just to be clear, even though many deaths before the invasion, like the deaths caused by the US imposed Sanctions, can be laid at the doorstep of the US, I am only taking about deaths that occurred after the invasion, including deaths occurring today from groups like ISIS.

Under Nuremberg principles ALL of these deaths are the responsibility of the invader and destroyer of Iraq.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since you clearly do not support the First Amendment why don't you leave the US and give up your citizenship as you disagree with one of our cornerstones.

Actually, he has the absolute right to disagree with any or all of the cornerstones of the US if he so chooses, and to remain both a resident and a citizen.

He is granted that right by the First Amendment to your constitution.

I was suggesting it as a good idea, not saying that he had to.

- - - Updated - - -

Check his timeline. The deaths you are trying to blame on the invasion came before the invasion.

Just to be clear, even though many deaths before the invasion, like the deaths caused by the US imposed Sanctions, can be laid at the doorstep of the US, I am only taking about deaths that occurred after the invasion, including deaths occurring today from groups like ISIS.

Under Nuremberg principles ALL of these deaths are the responsibility of the invader and destroyer of Iraq.

Except our sanctions weren't causing deaths. Saddam was causing deaths by not spending the money he did have on what the people needed. Plenty went entirely unspent, in other cases he spent it on what the people needed--and then turned around and sold the food etc for money to buy weapons.

Saddam is to blame for these deaths, not the US. Only those deaths that would have happened had Saddam behaved reasonably can be laid on the US.

 

[Bomb#20]

What political goals are you ascribing to Mohammed? Atrocities, yes, but that was simply a particularly vile form of looting. Not all atrocities are terrorism.

The most usual political goal of rulers: keeping the people in his vicinity obedient.

 

[untermensche]

Just to be clear, even though many deaths before the invasion, like the deaths caused by the US imposed Sanctions, can be laid at the doorstep of the US, I am only taking about deaths that occurred after the invasion, including deaths occurring today from groups like ISIS.

Under Nuremberg principles ALL of these deaths are the responsibility of the invader and destroyer of Iraq.

Except our sanctions weren't causing deaths. Saddam was causing deaths by not spending the money he did have on what the people needed. Plenty went entirely unspent, in other cases he spent it on what the people needed--and then turned around and sold the food etc for money to buy weapons.

Saddam is to blame for these deaths, not the US. Only those deaths that would have happened had Saddam behaved reasonably can be laid on the US.

This is what somebody actually involved in the Sanctions said.

I was driven to resignation because I refused to continue to take Security Council orders, the same Security Council that had imposed and sustained genocidal sanctions on the innocent of Iraq. I did not want to be complicit. I wanted to be free to speak out publicly about this crime.

And above all, my innate sense of justice was and still is outraged by the violence that UN sanctions have brought upon, and continues to bring upon, the lives of children, families – the extended families, the loved ones of Iraq. There is no justification for killing the young people of Iraq, not the aged, not the sick, not the rich, not the poor.

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

But of course you have the word of....oh that's right I forgot who I was talking to. You have nothing but your anti-Muslim prejudices.

 

[Deepak]

Since you clearly do not support the First Amendment why don't you leave the US and give up your citizenship as you disagree with one of our cornerstones.

Actually, he has the absolute right to disagree with any or all of the cornerstones of the US if he so chooses, and to remain both a resident and a citizen.

He is granted that right by the First Amendment to your constitution.

I don't think Loren's suggestion carries the weight of a governmental action.

Check his timeline. The deaths you are trying to blame on the invasion came before the invasion.

Just to be clear, even though many deaths before the invasion, like the deaths caused by the US imposed Sanctions, can be laid at the doorstep of the US, I am only taking about deaths that occurred after the invasion, including deaths occurring today from groups like ISIS.

Under Nuremberg principles ALL of these deaths are the responsibility of the invader and destroyer of Iraq.

Let's not kid ourselves here, those sanctions were UN sanctions specifically for the act of aggressive war against Kuwait. And as far as I'm aware reparations to Kuwait still have not been fully paid under the framework of the Nuremberg principles. Do you know what those are, or is that just a vocabulary word you picked up from a cereal box?

Can a leader choose to cause suffering to his own people and effectively end-run those principles?

More pointedly, how exactly would an anarcho-syndicalist force syndicate 1, 2, and 3 to trade with syndicate 4 if they choose not to, due to their determination that syndicate 4 is a jerk-store?

Your philosophical framework seems to be a shambles.

 

[untermensche]

Let's not kid ourselves here, those sanctions were UN sanctions specifically for the act of aggressive war against Kuwait.

You start by kidding yourself. Those murderous Sanctions were killing Iraqi children long after Iraq was completely removed from Kuwait.

It takes a vivid imagination to think they had anything to do with Kuwait.

They were part of the US effort to effect political change in Iraq. And they killed innocents in the process. They were really a form of terrorism.

 

[Deepak]

Let's not kid ourselves here, those sanctions were UN sanctions specifically for the act of aggressive war against Kuwait.

You start by kidding yourself. Those murderous Sanctions were killing Iraqi children long after Iraq was completely removed from Kuwait.

It takes a vivid imagination to think they had anything to do with Kuwait.

They were part of the US effort to effect political change in Iraq. And they killed innocents in the process. They were really a form of terrorism.

Any chance this will be the one time you'll actually back one of your statements up?

Here I'll even link you to the relevant docs: http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm

 

[Arctish]

Not just fragile and hypersensitive minds but minds made that way by massive US unjustified aggression.

Well that explains Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebo.

Why do you give excuse to bad behavior? What bothers me is that your apparent viewpoint is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. Wearing what she wore, she was asking for it. As an Islam apologist, perhaps that's not too surprising; it's the reason women are forced to wear hajib. But it's this abhorrent idea that the perpetrator has no responsibility for self-control. That people who adhere to the Muslim faith cannot be expected to behave like the rest of us. The bigotry of low expectations.

That's an interesting analogy. Let's try looking at it from a rape victim's viewpoint:

Suppose there's a woman who walks to work every day. Most people know she was gang raped a few years ago. One day, an empty lot on her route becomes a construction site. The men working there start catcalling every time the woman walks by. She is visibly upset at the treatment, and sometimes she shouts insults back at the men, which amuses them greatly so they goad and bait her all the more. She complains about the harassment, but no one will do anything because the men have the right of free speech, and they are on break when she walks by. One day, as she is walking past, a man mimes getting a blow job from her with loud moans and commentary about how much he is enjoying her mouth. The reminder of the degradation she suffered during the rape makes her literally see red. She snaps, pulls out a gun, and shoots him.

Obviously, she has committed a violent act in response to speech and should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. But is that all there is to it? Does the man or his co-workers bear no responsibility for provoking her into violence?

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaigns of harassment and insult?

 

[Deepak]

Well that explains Theo Van Gogh and Charlie Hebo.

Why do you give excuse to bad behavior? What bothers me is that your apparent viewpoint is akin to blaming a rape victim for dressing provocatively. Wearing what she wore, she was asking for it. As an Islam apologist, perhaps that's not too surprising; it's the reason women are forced to wear hajib. But it's this abhorrent idea that the perpetrator has no responsibility for self-control. That people who adhere to the Muslim faith cannot be expected to behave like the rest of us. The bigotry of low expectations.

That's an interesting analogy. Let's try looking at it from a rape victim's viewpoint:

Suppose there's a woman who walks to work every day. Most people know she was gang raped a few years ago. One day, an empty lot on her route becomes a construction site. The men working there start catcalling every time the woman walks by. She is visibly upset at the treatment, which amuses the men so they goad and bait her all the more. She complains about the harassment, but no one will do anything because the men have the right of free speech, and they are on break when she walks by. One day, as she is walking past, a man mimes getting a blow job from her with loud moans and commentary about how much he is enjoying her mouth. The reminder of the degradation she suffered during the rape makes her literally see red. She snaps, pulls out a gun, and shoots him.

Obviously, she has committed a violent act in response to speech and should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. But is that all there is to it? Does the man and his co-workers bear no responsibility for provoking her into violence?

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaign of harassing and insulting others?

I support free speech. I believe in the inherent right to have an opinion and express it. I support artists creating the art they want to create carrying the message they want to send. But I also believe in behaving responsibly. If you are deliberately provoking people you know are likely to be extremely upset and liable to react violently, you don't get to play the innocent if you get the expected result.

How far does this extend? If Salman Rushdie gets shot, do we shrug and say he was askin' for it?

 

[Arctish]

That's an interesting analogy. Let's try looking at it from a rape victim's viewpoint:

Suppose there's a woman who walks to work every day. Most people know she was gang raped a few years ago. One day, an empty lot on her route becomes a construction site. The men working there start catcalling every time the woman walks by. She is visibly upset at the treatment, which amuses the men so they goad and bait her all the more. She complains about the harassment, but no one will do anything because the men have the right of free speech, and they are on break when she walks by. One day, as she is walking past, a man mimes getting a blow job from her with loud moans and commentary about how much he is enjoying her mouth. The reminder of the degradation she suffered during the rape makes her literally see red. She snaps, pulls out a gun, and shoots him.

Obviously, she has committed a violent act in response to speech and should be prosecuted and punished accordingly. But is that all there is to it? Does the man and his co-workers bear no responsibility for provoking her into violence?

How about the school kids who shoot people or commit suicide as a response to relentless bullying? Do the bullies bear no responsibility for provoking violence and self destruction through their campaign of harassing and insulting others?

I support free speech. I believe in the inherent right to have an opinion and express it. I support artists creating the art they want to create carrying the message they want to send. But I also believe in behaving responsibly. If you are deliberately provoking people you know are likely to be extremely upset and liable to react violently, you don't get to play the innocent if you get the expected result.

How far does this extend? If Salman Rushdie gets shot, do we shrug and say he was askin' for it?

I don't think so. And I don't think the artists who created the Danish Mohammed cartoons should either. But IMO people like Pamela Geller are bullies looking for opportunities to throw rocks. She appears to be more interested in baiting and goading Muslims than in promoting the right to freely express an opinion.

So I guess there are 2 questions I asking here: where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable reactions to free speech, and where do we draw the line between free speech and destructive bullying/harassment/hate-speech? If a cartoon is designed to inflame passions, does the artist bear any responsibility if it succeeds?

 

[Deepak]

So I guess there are 2 questions I asking here: where do we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable reactions to free speech, and where do we draw the line between free speech and destructive bullying/harassment/hate-speech? If a cartoon is designed to inflame passions, does the artist bear any responsibility if it succeeds?

I actually see three questions, which I'll answer in order:

1. Violent reactions to nonviolent acts are wrong full-stop. As long as the reaction is nonviolent then I'd consider it acceptable.
2. The line here is in the mode rather than the content itself. If the speech is inciting violence, or targeted in a way to make a specific individual or individuals feel threatened then I think a line has been crossed. An example would be putting anti-Muslim statements on a mosque, or burning a cross on someone's lawn. While I find what they represent vile, I wouldn't restrict Nazis' rights to advocate for slavery or the final solution, so long as they're not committing violent acts or targeting a specific group of Jews.
3. Of course, but isn't the entire point of art to elicit an emotional response? I don't think that art should always be pleasing or pleasant.