Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper
MoonlightSonata, did you read what you posted?
". You are allowed to offend people.
2. Defamation requires the person defamed to be alive. Muhammad is dead."
SimpsonFreak never said it was illegal, rather he suggests that it is wrong and should be frowned upon. For example verbal racism is not illegal however it is not tolerated. Verbal abuses are not illegal, yet in some parts of countries and in many sports you can be fined for this. Defamation is illegal, however in no part of Simpson Freak's posts did he suggest that freedom of speech is illegal, rather he suggests it should be censored at times. Moonlightsonta, in light of your short replies, they are indeed that. You seem to be making a large assumption, that Simpson Freak thinks it is illegal, to rebutt.
"1. That is unreasonable, logically. Drawing a picture of someone is reasonable.
2. That is not analogous with the present case. This is a religion, not a race."
This really doesn't make any sense. If that is unreasonable, then the Danish newspaper cartoon is also unreasonable, as it gives a false view of the muslim people. Analogies do not have to be exactly the same. Of course this is religion not a race, but it also questions the freedom of speech.
"It depends on what kind of political statement they are trying to make. It may be incorrect, but then it is just a silly cartoon. Doesn't mean it should be restricted." Of course it depends on the kind of politcal statement they are trying to make, but it is blatant that it is against muslims and portrays them as terrorists. However if you think it is a "silly cartoon", then why has it caused so much violence and hatred by muslims? If it is such a silly cartoon, why shouldn't it be restricted to prevent riots and anger from many muslims.
"Not true. If Christian groups were outraged at a picture I drew of Jesus then personally I'd give them the free-speech finger as well." Of course you wouldn't because you appear to be not a religious person("This is also why I have such disdain for religion"), as a result you do not have a high regard for it.
"You wouldn't be villifying Christians. You'd be satirising or criticising the practices of a religion. There's a difference." Actually the definition for vilify is spread negative information, and that is EXACTLY what it will be doing, just as this portrayal of the muslim people.
"He was criticised for discriminating against a gay person. This is not the same at all. It is criticism of a religion - a belief, not the natural state of a human being." This is correct. However the cartoon is also criticising the muslim people, suggesting that they are simply terrorists. Most muslims are non-terrorsts. So is it right to call a muslim a "terrorist" if he is not, but wrong to call a gay guy "a pansy" when in fact he may be so?
"You are right, it is important to consider the practical issues of global relationships here. (This is also why I have such disdain for religion - it is the cause of so much stupidity.)" Then why are you against the restriction of this particular cartoon, if it will prevent such violence?
"People aren't going to do that. If they are then they are just foolish or ignorant." This is stupid, what are you trying to say? Of course people will do that, because they are foolish and ignorant, and . People will also cause illegal acts of terroism because they are foolish and ignorant. Why then shouldn't mulim terrorism ideas be restricted?
"That is not even a remotely coherent analogy." Actually it is a coherent analogy. They are both hiding behind a principle (freedom of speech or anti-terroism) to justify their actions.
It seems that you are assuming that SimpsonFreak thinks that it is illegal. However it is not. He merely suggests that we should restrict such portrayals. You are using assumptions to back your arguments. Like Mary Mcalesse says, there should be certain restrictions to freedom of speech. MOons... is another user who is simply pro-freedom of speech without neccessarily looking at the consequences. What would happen if crosses were burnt on africn-american turf, the nazis allowed to march through jewish villages. Of course this is freedom of speech, however it causes such psychological terror and anger.
