|
John_Anon_Smith posted:The freedom of speech is not recognised as the freedom to say and communicate whatever the hell you want. The recognition of that right carries with it certain responsibilities on the part of the individual to respect the beliefs and reputation of others in the international community, and to respect public order and decency. A 2 hour film of people with fake tan and fake beards that portrays the prophet of 1/5 of the world's population as a drunken, murderous paedophile is a damning neglect of that responsibility. The blame is entirely on the fundies that executed the attack.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
The guy identifies himself as Israeli (I don't know if that means he's a citizen of Israel or if he is just an American who really likes Israel. I am leaning towards the former?) and expected this kind of fallout. If it turns out he was implicit in dubbing it to arabic, I think he should be deported. Free speech is defensible but this is hate speech teetering on the knife's edge of treason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The blame is entirely on the fundies that executed the attack. It's not entirely on them, promoting hate speech is terrible as well and the people who did that should not get a free pass.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The guy identifies himself as Israeli (I don't know if that means he's a citizen of Israel or if he is just an American who really likes Israel. I am leaning towards the former?) and expected this kind of fallout. If it turns out he was implicit in dubbing it to arabic, I think he should be deported. Free speech is defensible but this is hate speech teetering on the knife's edge of treason. Are you going to praise Pakistan's blasphemy law next?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
LP97S posted:It's not entirely on them, promoting hate speech is terrible as well and the people who did that should not get a free pass. Especially when, as you might reasonably extrapolate from this, the point of the hate speech was to incite this kind of violence in the first place. The guy who incites a riot isn't exempt from punishment just because he didn't bust any windows or flip any cars.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:42
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The guy identifies himself as Israeli (I don't know if that means he's a citizen of Israel or if he is just an American who really likes Israel. I am leaning towards the former?) and expected this kind of fallout. If it turns out he was implicit in dubbing it to arabic, I think he should be deported. Free speech is defensible but this is hate speech teetering on the knife's edge of treason. Isn't he an Egyptian Copt ? If that's the case you may as well shoot him dead here and now to save the expense of deporting him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The blame is entirely on the fundies that executed the attack. When a bomb goes off, yes the bomb itself is why people are dead, but you also have to blame the dude who pounded the detonate button too. The simple fact is this guy proudly admits he did the video to denigrate and insult Islam, and even that he 'expected' such backlash. He knew what he was doing, and was fully alright with it, you can't pretend he isn't a factor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:The guy identifies himself as Israeli (I don't know if that means he's a citizen of Israel or if he is just an American who really likes Israel. I am leaning towards the former?) and expected this kind of fallout. If it turns out he was implicit in dubbing it to arabic, I think he should be deported. Free speech is defensible but this is hate speech teetering on the knife's edge of treason. An Egyptian TV station translated the video. And no, we are not about to relinquish our freedom of speech just because of some fanatics who flip out at any and all forms of criticism towards their faith. Religions should not be beyond reproach, I don't see how Islam should be any different. Adrastus fucked around with this message at 14:48 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:I think anyone who is angry at this man is fully justified in doing so. If you want to compare the mindsets we're dealing with here, the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri tried to compare it by asking how we would feel if someone made a movie insulting the pope or Abraham Lincoln. CeeJee posted:Isn't he an Egyptian Copt ? If that's the case you may as well shoot him dead here and now to save the expense of deporting him. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:44
|
|
|
Grandasaur Egg posted:That is covered in the interview -- Hedges has this opinion, too. The fact that Hitchens is completely amoral and therefore at times funny doesn't discount that he did and said things that aren't beneficial to world stability. Yeah, it could be, except there really isn't any New Atheist thing, like there is in fundamentalism. Also, you're mistaking what atheism IS. It's simply a disbelief in god. That's it. There is, currently, a huge rift among atheists, centered around mysogony, racism and politics. But the thing is, it has poo poo to do with atheism. We start where we shed superstition (for those who ever had it) and work from there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
There's something patronizing about claiming a video is a "detonator" for a bomb. You're taking away agency from the perpetrators of the attack. They aren't automatons that mindlessly react to a video and start killing people. I'm curious what people are implying here - that anti-religious speech should be banned?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Isn't he an Egyptian Copt ? If that's the case you may as well shoot him dead here and now to save the expense of deporting him. No, the Copt (and possibly Jones) were backers and promoters, but not directly responsible for the film.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:There's something patronizing about claiming a video is a "detonator" for a bomb. You're taking away agency from the perpetrators of the attack. They aren't automatons that mindlessly react to a video and start killing people. No, they should be blamed, and they are being blamed, literally every leader involved is blaming them and going 'nope, you don't get to riot and murder people in an embassy', there is literally no one in power not blaming them. Many are also blaming the rear end in a top hat who made a video for the sole reason to insult and anger Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
John_Anon_Smith posted:The freedom of speech is not recognised as the freedom to say and communicate whatever the hell you want. The recognition of that right carries with it certain responsibilities on the part of the individual to respect the beliefs and reputation of others in the international community, and to respect public order and decency. A 2 hour film of people with fake tan and fake beards that portrays the prophet of 1/5 of the world's population as a drunken, murderous paedophile is a damning neglect of that responsibility. Not in the U.S., not legally speaking. He's an rear end in a top hat, he should be criticized roundly by pretty much everyone, but he is well within his (legal) rights to make a video that says exactly that, even taking into account fighting words. This will be a gross simplification because I'm too lazy to make an effort post but basically ever since Brandenberg established the "imminent lawless action" test the only way the government can legally prohibit speech on the idea of fighting words is if the speech is intentionally intending and likely to incite people to imminent lawless action. Since the video is not intentionally intending to incite people to imminent lawless action (to say nothing of the fact that the lawless action is taking place outside of U.S. jurisdiction) means that he is on solid Constitutional ground. Before you say "well of course it's intentional, what does he expect people are going to do?" "intentional" in this context means explicitly telling someone to do something violent. Making a video that says "kill all Muslims" would meet that portion of the test, making a video that is just grossly disrespectful to the religion is nowhere close to meeting it, even if you fully expect a violent reaction from the disrespect. He's still an rear end in a top hat though. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:blame blame blame blame Take a deep breath and calm down. Am I right in saying that you're for a ban of anti-religious speech?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:There's something patronizing about claiming a video is a "detonator" for a bomb. You're taking away agency from the perpetrators of the attack. They aren't automatons that mindlessly react to a video and start killing people. More that the intention of deliberate hate speech should be examined when somebody is incited to commit a crime because of that hate speech. there are plenty of criticisms of islam that I would defend as legitimate. This is indefensible hate speech that the guy made with the intention of pissing off the arab world to begin with. That's why it's so objectionable to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:
If you look at the countries here nearly every one has some hate speech based laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:If you look at the countries here nearly every one has some hate speech based laws. The US is noticeably absent from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Am I right in saying that you're for a ban of anti-religious speech? No, I don't know where you're even getting this from. For one, you can blame someone and not want them arrested, and for another considering we already have things like 'fighting words' in the law I feel it's reasonable to, in the case of this where someone is making a statement for the sole reason to anger and degrade a culture, and even makes a statement about how he 'expected' such a reaction, there are grounds to go 'welp, gently caress that guy'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:52
|
|
|
While we do not have on the books legislation against hate speech, keep in mind that Charles Manson never killed anybody and he's doing consecutive life sentences. He used hate speech to turn his followers into killers. While the proximity and allegiances may be different, if the intention of the movie's creator was to stir up violence and unrest in the middle east with his film, I don't see him as much better by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:54
|
|
|
Geokinesis posted:If you look at the countries here nearly every one has some hate speech based laws. Is the issue really the speech in the YouTube video? Innocent people that had literally NOTHING to do with this YouTube video were killed by an angry mob. At the risk of sounding like Glenn Beck for a moment, can’t we condemn this sort of action as at least coming from backward logic? If I insult your prophet in the most heinous way possible, and I am an American citizen how is explainable that you kill a Canadian diplomat? I mean yea this YouTube video is super offensive to any Muslims but how does that make the actions of the mob even explainable for a moment?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:55
|
|
Mirthless posted:More that the intention of deliberate hate speech should be examined when somebody is incited to commit a crime because of that hate speech. It's really great how patronizing Westerners become in situations like these, to treat Muslims like latently murderous idiot children when it comes to depictions of the Prophet, or, even more offensively, like they are bombs waiting to be set off by the right trigger. It's pathetic, bigoted, and shifts blame off of the murderers where it belongs. az jan jananam fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Sep 12, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Yes, but angry for being a complete god drat idiot for not expecting a major reaction, and possibly for making an absolutely dreadful movie, not for the fact that religious extremists burned down an embassy over it. Neo-Confederates commonly say that Lincoln is a warmonger and a tyrant. And in regards to the pope it wouldn't surprise me if Jones considers the Pope to be the antichrist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:The US is noticeably absent from it. Wikipedia posted: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) Oh boy, that sure is a great civil right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
How about the Dutch Mohammed comics? If extremists had used them as an excuse to kill people, would we be having the same discussion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Yes, but angry for being a complete god drat idiot for not expecting a major reaction... At least one consultant on the film expected a major reaction. quote:A consultant on the film, Steve Klein, said... "We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen." But that's also different from "intending to incite."
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:While we do not have on the books legislation against hate speech, keep in mind that Charles Manson never killed anybody and he's doing consecutive life sentences. He used hate speech to turn his followers into killers. While the proximity and allegiances may be different, if the intention of the movie's creator was to stir up violence and unrest in the middle east with his film, I don't see him as much better by comparison. Charles Manson instructed people to commit murder, the makers of the film didn't. That's where your comparison ends. shrike82 posted:How about the Dutch Mohammed comics? If extremists had used them as an excuse to kill people, would we be having the same discussion? Danish !
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
What a bunch of loving assholes. All of them. I cannot believe this. RIP Vilerat. You will be sorely missed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
KaneTW posted:Oh boy, that sure is a great civil right. Actually it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This is in somewhat poor taste considering it's not Jones that got punched in the face. If only it was him, but that's not the point. He's trying to use what happened as a "See! See! I told you they're all terrible" bit, conveniently ignoring that he was provoking them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
Arzy posted:I would prefer Vilerat's death be avenged but that's just me. So are you going to participate this "valid response" or are you leaving that to the poors who get shoveled into the military?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It's really great how patronizing Westerners become in situations like these, to treat Muslims like latently murderous idiot children when it comes to depictions of the Prophet, or, even more offensively, like they are bombs waiting to be set off by the right trigger. Your argument is pretty hollow considering this happens every single time a cartoon or TV show or movie comes out that depicts the prophet in a negative light. We are literally having a discussion about four people, including an SA member who were murdered because a dude made a lovely low budget movie and it hit an egyptian cable channel. You can only say something was a unique, non-representative scenario so many times before it stops being a legitimate statement. shrike82 posted:How about the Dutch Mohammed comics? If extremists had used them as an excuse to kill people, would we be having the same discussion? It's different because those comics weren't done with the intention of stirring up violence. Much like the financier of this movie, who once burned the qu'ran because he knew the kind of protests it would stir up in the middle east, I feel that the director of this movie never made it to make a statement in the US, he made it to piss off extremists in the middle east. Part of the ongoing campaign to paint Islam as a religion of hate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:It's really great how patronizing Westerners become in situations like these, to treat Muslims like latently murderous idiot children when it comes to depictions of the Prophet, or, even more offensively, like they are bombs waiting to be set off by the right trigger. It's pathetic, bigoted, and shifts blame off of the murderers where it belongs. Where are the posts that you're railing against removing agency from the people who committed these crimes? Is it not possible that there can be more than one person, or group of people who share culpability for what happened?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
KaneTW posted:Oh boy, that sure is a great civil right. We need to throw Bill Maher in prison for that 'Religulous' movie, then?o
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Oh man, Hillary just said that the picture leading drudgereport was a picture of Libyan civilians carrying the ambassador to the hospital, not taking of a trophy reminiscent of what happened in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:How about the Dutch Mohammed comics? If extremists had used them as an excuse to kill people, would we be having the same discussion? I think you mean Danish  We had the lovely movie Fitna made by Wilders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Oh man, Hillary just said that the picture leading drudgereport was a picture of Libyan civilians carrying the ambassador to the hospital, not taking of a trophy reminiscent of what happened in Iraq. Wow, you mean Drudge flagrantly misrepresented a photograph and Arzy ate that poo poo up, telling us about how much it made him see red and want to kill Muslims? Golly, I'm totally shocked by this crazy turn of events!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:Your argument is pretty hollow considering this happens every single time a cartoon or TV show or movie comes out that depicts the prophet in a negative light. We are literally having a discussion about four people, including an SA member who were murdered because a dude made a lovely low budget movie and it hit an egyptian cable channel. They weren't murdered because of a low budget movie, but because Salafists extremists were looking for a reason to attack Americans and gain support of the Libyan population. You're trying to blame the makers of a poo poo movie for the actions of others. There's dozens of these type videos on youtube, just search for 'Quran burning'. The embassy attack wasn't a sudden outburst of anger, but a premeditated racist attack by a militant group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
That isn't the same as a hate speech law though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Oh man, Hillary just said that the picture leading drudgereport was a picture of Libyan civilians carrying the ambassador to the hospital, not taking of a trophy reminiscent of what happened in Iraq. Someone else posted something saying the same earlier and I was just about to post asking for a source. If that is the case we really need to make that part of the story as well because I'm sure the fact that Libyans were trying to help him won't get much play in many places.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:07
|
|
