Author
|
Topic: Muslim caricatures (Read 27283 times)
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
"yes actually the best place to live in Funny that someone outside of Sweden heard about that..."
Yes, I remember reading about that in the economist (a non-north american capitalist pig newspaper  .) I don't think any of the main security council nations were very high up there, and neither were many/any former imperials. I suppose living in a super power isn't as cool as some might believe.
"The people that's liberal in the US now would probably be communists if they moved to europe."
I always thought (modern) europe tended to lean more left than the usa.
"kommunism (Everbody equal)"
Well, that's what they say anyway, but I think party members provide somewhat better treatment for themselves.
Would you like to join the *Party* and become a *Comrade*.
You are a *Silly Pig*, no more capitalist stories!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
StaffyStar
Guest
|
yes well that's what I meant. At least thats what the people that like the ideology say about it. But of course you're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Yea, I heard you just elected a more right wing prime minister.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arne
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 520
Yak!
|
Not all speech should be protected. If the Swedish nationalist web site was inciting violence, it it proper for it to have been shut down.
But in this case they posted a picture of Spock acting emotional and a couple of trekkies got upset about the mistreatment of their fictional character.
You can't treat the trekkies as if they're a force of nature without any free will, but then say the publisher of the offending Spock images have a free will and thus is the one to blame. Either both have a free will or none do.
You could of course say both are to blame, but then you're saying that it's illegal to slander a fictional character, and that would be dangerous. Then it would become illegal to draw pics of Xenu with a funny hat because "maybe Tom Cruise will totally freak out, again". It would be to give in to the demands of terrorists, otherwise you're inciting their violence!
Nor can you adapt an entire society after the (probably conflicting) wishes of various religious groups. For example, imagine a religion where they believe "Muhammed must be drawn every day, or else we go postal". Who are you going to satisfy then?
Inciting violence would be something along the lines of "Hey trekkies, you suck, come and bomb us!" not posting an image of a happy Spock, which could very well have been done because the image was of public intrest.
I do realize the cartoons were intended to tease, but so was Piss-Christ and TONS of art. Are you going to make special laws for the groups that tend to get more upset than the others?
Edit: It seems the ISP was merely "recommended" to shut down the site, whatever that means.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 11:09:30 am by Arne »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
"You can't treat the trekkies as if they're a force of nature without any free will, but then say the publisher of the offending Spock images have a free will and thus is the one to blame. Either both have a free will or none do."
Yea, it may be too easy to just blame whatever the "source" is that is "inciting" a conflict. People (even stupid ones) are not natural phenomenon, if they riot, they are responsible. What about sports riots? Should the stadiums or teams be held accountable?
"Then it would become illegal to draw pics of Xenu with a funny hat because "maybe Tom Cruise will totally freak out, again"."
Slightly off topic:
http://tcruiseko.ytmnd.com/
"It would be to give in to the demands of terrorists, otherwise you're inciting their violence!"
Two subway cars were bombed in downtown stockholm today, an act authorities believe to be the work of the United Federations of Planets Underground. Two of the red shirted culprits were shot dead as they tried to flee the scene, but the senior officers are said to have escaped using a phased antimatter modulated tachyon plasmatic pulse transporter.
"posting an image of a happy Spock, which could very well have been done because the image was of public intrest."
I was like twelve when I watched through TOS, but wasn't spock happy in a number of episodes, including one where he's not drugged up or anything but is just happy and surprised to see kirk is alive (forgot the details of that episode, but I think he somehow felt or was semi responsible.)
"The Conservative party got a minority
of the votes (about 1/3) from the voting population. About 40%
voted. So it's a minority of a minority party. Our government
is a bit backward that way."
Well, the USA only has two real parties and yet each only ever wins on a small percentage of citizen's votes. Most don't vote at all. This of course, is no shock to us. Our very colonial independence was supported by only one third of the populace, opposed to a third that were loyalist to Britain and another third that just didn't give a damn either way.
"But, yes, Canada is now an offical red neck country."
Hehe, welcome to Jesus Land !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
Not all speech should be protected.
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.
OMG your sarcasm has cut me to the quick! 
Seriously, the classic example is yelling 'FIRE!' in a crowded space with limited access to exits.
Another kind of non-protected speech is false advertisement. Libel/slander, too. Oh, and how about impersonating a police officer, lawyer, doctor, public accountant, officer of the armed forces, etc.? Death threats are sometimes considered a form of assault. Last superbowl resulted in fines for something that could conceivably have been construed as free speech.
I am not saying that THESE CARTOONS should not be protected speech, nor even that the default setting for speech should not be 'permitted', just pointing out that not ALL speech unquestioningly gets protected.
Oh, and BTW: The US constitution has little to do with what goes on in Sweden.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Well, then the definition of "Freedom of Speech" can pretty much mean anything (or nothing.) Basically, the phrase "Freedom of Speech" instead of meaning "you're free to say what you want" just means "you're free to say what you want unless it is illegal or else we throw you in the fun house."
That's just stupid. Obviously, even in the most rigid societies, there are always things for you to say that are not illegal. So "Freedom of Speech" means nothing more than "you can freely say a few more things that you wouldn't be able to say someplace else while staying out of jail."
I'm not saying you should be able to say whatever you want, just that you shouldn't be able to claim you provide "Freedom of Speech" if you're not really doing that. Perhaps it should be called something like "Freedom to verbally bash the government."
BTW, I'd prefer that somebody warns me by saying "I'm gonna kill ya," thus giving me the opportunity to kick the living shit out of him before he tries to kill me. I really hate the getting killed part a lot more than the threat.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 18, 2006, 01:58:40 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Amscray
Guest
|
Do you mean in the US? What are you basing this on? I'm asking because it seems to directly contradict the text of the First Amendment. Perhaps you can point out to me where it says free speech is good except for when it might hurt or offend people. I mean, I'm reviewing the text over and over again and I just can't find that part, please advise.
Would it help to provide you with citations to Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment?
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), the Supreme Court held:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words — those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Id. at 571-72. In Chaplinsky the court held that calling a police officer a "goddamn racketeer" constituted fighting words. FWIW, the doctrine has never been applied since.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), the Court held that the state can forbid advocacy of violence "where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Id. at 447.
The "intentional infliction of emotional distress," by words, can be made tortious by the state so long as:
(1) The words are false, if the victim is not a public figure and it is not a matter of public concern.
(2) The words are false and it was at least negligent to say them, if the victim is not a public figure and it *is* a matter of public concern.
(3) The words are false and the speaker knew they were false or recklessly disregarded the truth in saying them, if the victim is a public figure.
See generally Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" requires that the speaker knowingly say something outside the bounds of decency, etc.
In Watts v. United States, 394 US 705 (1969), the Court held that "true threats" are not protected by the Constitution.
So, there are a few areas in which speech is restricted "when it might hurt or offend people." Don't get me wrong, it's pretty clear that the cartoons are totally and entirely protected under the First Amendment for purposes of American law. European countries have a lot more restrictions, though, so I can't opine. I've written elsewhere on what I think about the cartoons, but basically I think it's pretty clear that the riots have little or nothing to do with the cartoons (which are just a pretext), that kowtowing to the mob is a terrible idea for the West, that offending people for the sake of offending them is bad, that however it might not be a bad idea for the West to demonstrate that outrageous calumnies are a two-way street, and if Muslim nations want to disparage Jews, Christians, Europeans, and Americans, they should be able to take it back, etc. But all that aside, you're just wrong on the constitutional law point, and, being somewhat qualified to correct you (J.D., Harvard, magna cum laude, and fancy clerkships), I figured I should point it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
