Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[*Mahzala*]

Damn Ozy, you nailed the idiots to the wall. I think one of the main issues is none of these people have ever been in the US, not long enough to understand its laws. They've just been in Europe and the Middle East, so they think "hate speech laws" and such are just a part of every society.

Idiots? Don't take me wrong, you're more than welcome here, but classifying the entire site as idiots is just not going to be tolerated.

Baseless claim, after baseless claim I am reading in your posts Jameson. None of these people have been to the US? That does nothing but show your own lack of knowledge. US has the highest growing Muslim population in the world. If you put up a poll, the majority of members on this site are in the US. Hate speech laws haven't come from our socities, they're coming out of other societies towards us.

How much of the Eastern media are you exposed to? Don't make claims that have no or very weak foundation.

[ozymandias]

Damn Ozy, you nailed the idiots to the wall. I think one of the main issues is none of these people have ever been in the US, not long enough to understand its laws. They've just been in Europe and the Middle East, so they think "hate speech laws" and such are just a part of every society.

I do my best to help all sides ;-)

[imb706]

Idiots? Don't take me wrong, you're more than welcome here, but classifying the entire site as idiots is just not going to be tolerated.

I didn't call the entire site idiots though. Just the people Ozy was directly responding too. I guess that was harsh, I apologize. I shouldn't be insulting people and yes this should be civil. I apologize again.

Baseless claim, after baseless claim I am reading in your posts Jameson. None of these people have been to the US?

I never said none of them have been to the US, I said obviously none of the people writing about "hate speech laws" have been in the US long enough to understand free speech laws in the US. Either that or they just are very ignorant on the laws.

US has the highest growing Muslim population in the world.

It also has the highest Falun Gong, Mormon, Anabaptist, Hao Hao and such growing population! But seriously, it's an unfounded claim by every proselytizing religion that its growing faster than Kentucky bluegrass. If anything, the West is experiencing a loss of religion, especially in Europe. Thank God for that!

Hate speech laws haven't come from our socities, they're coming out of other societies towards us.

Hate speech laws are usually in places affected by the Nazis, or are just reactionary measures against racist *******s. I don't think they do any good though, so I oppose their implementation in the US.

[*Mahzala*]

Islam defines blasphemy as questioning the authorship of the Qu'ran. That's every non-muslim. I certainly don't think it was written by some muhammad or allah. Plus laws against blasphemy are unconstitutional. Making threats, which isn't speech but a call to action, has been recognized as being sometimes bad, but not drawing a cartoon. Deal with it, criticism of religion ain't going away.

It does not. Go do for some research. Blasphemy isn't limited to Islam. The offence of blasphemy is aimed at preventing the publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus, the Bible or the formualries of the Church. And this is established by law. And those threats are a result of incitement - which itself is a serious offence - under law.

I am, trust me I am and always have! But that is beyond the point anyway.

[ozymandias]

I haven't read the entire thread and I don't have time to read close to 330 replies, however, I am responding because two members requested that I voice my opinion here. And so I will respond with a focus on the media's role in all of this.

So I begin with 'attempting' to define free speech. What is free speech? Does it have a straightfoward answer? I don't think so. Defining free speech is a difficult task mainly because the history of free speech is in part a struggle in itself. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of communication are some of the expressions used, sometimes synonymously, to describe freedom, although the natural and ordinary meaning of 'speech' is the act of speaking. For the purpose of discussions about free speech, 'speech' covers more than just speech. It may include symbols, sounds, shapes, gestures and pictures, lifting a flag in battle, raising a hand against advancing tanks, wearing symbols of dissent, participating in a public prayer or meditation et cetraaa. And you get my drift. Personally, I like to think that freedom of speech is an impossibility because the condition of speech being free in the first place is unrealisable. And I say this because there are things like ideological pressures that influence speech such as politics. Free speech is just the name we give to verbal behaviour that serves the agendas we wish to advance. There is no such thing as totally FREE speech.

Having said that, freedom of speech also has numerous rationales. You can use this to your advantage as a path to attain truth, the right to self-determination, exercising democracy and the stimulus to tolerance. But then, that's not to say there are no negatives of free speech. Free speech may result in physical harm, the dissemination of error, damage to reputation, invasion of privacy, incitement of hatred, causing offence and breaches of all kinds. And these rationales have been recognised by the Canadian, American, English and European courts. Moving on ...

That's not all I have to say about free speech though. Bear with me. So, there are two approaches to go about free speech - the absolutist and the balancing approach. The former demands that there should be NO constraints on free speech whatever, while the latter requires a weighing up of competing public interests. So, respectively, you're able to freely promote ideas for shoplifting, bomb-making, freedom to describe terrorists as good people. A balancing approach takes into account whether more good or harm would result from the expression of ideas for which free speech protection is sought, when considered against another legitimate interest for which protection is also sought. And I will be nice and frank with you on this, despite the fact that people may or may not know about this approach, the former is in practice, everywhere. I am not saying there isn't protection, there is - BUT, this approach is relatively more in practice - as is apparent from this cartoon.

Moving on ...

I'll accept that. It's close enough to the way I see things..

According to my knowledge of media law, this is clearly a case of broadcasting offensive material, which in turn incites hatred against or vilifies any person or group on the basis of race or religion (I am being specific with examples that relate only to this cartoon, there are obviously many more). Again, according to my understanding, this is an offence of blasphemy, which is bound to incite violence. And all of these are offences under law (free speech or not), which may be considered serious breaches of the broadcasting acts or laws. The media play a large part in shaping attitudes, beliefs and ideas, and reflecting on such issues in a culturally diverse society is vital for all. At the end of the day, I like to think it is all deliberate.

... I wonder if some people believe in prevention, rather than cure ...

Not true at all. The terrorists are wrong for resorting to terrorism -- and there is no reason (nor laws) to restrict free speech on the basis of unreasonable reactions - at least in the US, where South Park is created. Besides, if your claim is true, the news would have to be censored, as many violent outbursts and terrorist attacks are the result of portraying Muslims as violent on the news.

Free speech limited by laws based on fear is far less free than free speech limited by self censorship. The only valid justification for limiting freedoms is to protect additional freedoms -- i.e. free speech is limited to prevent threatening people, as they have a right to be free from fears of attack or physical harm. There is no such justification to limit political or religious speech not infringing on anyone's rights.

[*Mahzala*]

I didn't call the entire site idiots though. Just the people Ozy was directly responding too. I guess that was harsh, I apologize. I shouldn't be insulting people and yes this should be civil. I apologize again.

That is appreciated.

I never said none of them have been to the US, I said obviously none of the people writing about "hate speech laws" have been in the US long enough to understand free speech laws in the US. Either that or they just are very ignorant on the laws.

You didn't say that, but that is what it suggests. Anyhow, I won't repeat myself, for you and me.

[ozymandias]

It does not. Go do for some research. Blasphemy isn't limited to Islam. The offence of blasphemy is aimed at preventing the publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus, the Bible or the formualries of the Church. And this is established by law.

Only in non-free countries, as free countries have free speech.

And those threats are a result of incitement - which itself is a serious offence - under law.

Nope. Again, that would make news broadcasts illegal.

I am, trust me I am and always have! But that is beyond the point anyway.

[imb706]

It does not. Go do for some research. Blasphemy isn't limited to Islam.

I never said blasphemy was limited to Islam. (We're talking about muslims, not catholics so I assume we can understand the issues brought up are about Islam) And yes it does: It is blasphemy: * to find fault with Islam.[34][35][36][37] * to find fault with a belief or a practice which the Muslim community (Ummah) has adopted.[39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Some of the things on the list are absolutely insane! Muslims are crazy sometimes.

How much of the Eastern media are you exposed to? Don't make claims that have no or very weak foundation.

Define "eastern media." Democracy Now covers a lot of Middle eastern and asian issues, more so than really any other US media outlet. But no, I don't watch Iranian or Saudi media, that stuff is crap. It'd be like watching FOX news. Who would bother when you knows it's crap?

The offence of blasphemy is aimed at preventing the publication of contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus, the Bible or the formualries of the Church. And this is established by law. And those threats are a result of incitement - which itself is a serious offence - under law.

Um, no it's not. Not in the US. You do realize forbidding "blasphemy" is unconstitutional right? If it was illegal, then ironically the founder of the US, Thomas Paine would have to get arrested. Alongside Thomas Jefferson, the third president. Oh, and Martin Van Bruin. And JFK. And Martin Luther King. Okay, you get my point.

[*Mahzala*]

Not true at all. The terrorists are wrong for resorting to terrorism -- and there is no reason (nor laws) to restrict free speech on the basis of unreasonable reactions - at least in the US, where South Park is created. Besides, if your claim is true, the news would have to be censored, as many violent outbursts and terrorist attacks are the result of portraying Muslims as violent on the news.

Free speech limited by laws based on fear is far less free than free speech limited by self censorship. The only valid justification for limiting freedoms is to protect additional freedoms -- i.e. free speech is limited to prevent threatening people, as they have a right to be free from fears of attack or physical harm. There is no such justification to limit political or religious speech not infringing on anyone's rights.

They are wrong, that is true. But remember, incitement is a grave offence too. I am not suggesting restricting free speech, in fact, I couldn't care less. What I am saying - and these are not baseless statements - is that as much as free speech is practised, there are just as much protection laws. Privacy, defamation, copyright, contempt of court et cetraa. Free speech isn't limited, it is protected ... so at the end of the day, there are ways out. Again, it comes back to which approach we're talking about.

My claim is right. For Australia at least. But that's the thing Ozy. Not every media organisation or every reporter is bound to an ethical alliance. And this makes a huge difference, you begin to consider values, loyalties and principles in news reporting, and is more than 'grab that story' practice. I think we're drifiting ...

[imb706]

It does depend on what you're inciting. Inciting to protest isn't a crime at all. Neither is incitement to get a can of soda. Get what I mean?

[*Mahzala*]

Yes, I do, that is pretty simple to understand. What I am getting at is stimulating someone to commit an offence.

[imb706]

Well, I guess I should ask, what is your views on the laws regarding blasphemy? But anyway, as for stimulating, anyone can be stimulated to violence over anything. You can't make laws limiting speech on that, because anyone can get angry at something to the point of violence. Some crazy mormon can see someone make fun of Joseph Smith and then take a flamethrower and burn down his house.

[ozymandias]

They are wrong, that is true. But remember, incitement is a grave offence too.

You might think so. Lucky for the free world, though, this is not true.

I am not suggesting restricting free speech, in fact, I couldn't care less. What I am saying - and these are not baseless statements - is that as much as free speech is practised, there are just as much protection laws. Privacy, defamation, copyright, contempt of court et cetraa. Free speech isn't limited, it is protected ... so at the end of the day, there are ways out. Again, it comes back to which approach we're talking about.

Fair enough.

My claim is right. For Australia at least. But that's the thing Ozy. Not every media organisation or every reporter is bound to an ethical alliance. And this makes a huge difference, you begin to consider values, loyalties and principles in news reporting, and is more than 'grab that story' practice. I think we're drifiting ...

Ethical alliances are a voluntary agreement that a person willingly joins and willingly agrees to forgo the exercise of their rights -- they are not prohibited from doing so.

[ozymandias]

Yes, I do, that is pretty simple to understand. What I am getting at is stimulating someone to commit an offence.

The offender is wrong. Period.

[ozymandias]

Well, I guess I should ask, what is your views on the laws regarding blasphemy? But anyway, as for stimulating, anyone can be stimulated to violence over anything. You can't make laws limiting speech on that, because anyone can get angry at something to the point of violence. Some crazy mormon can see someone make fun of Joseph Smith and then take a flamethrower and burn down his house.

I find it offensive you would portray Mormon's in an offensive manner and call them violent. I am going to burn down your house -- and *YOU* are the one that broke the law -- I mean, I got upset over something *YOU* said -- so you incited me to violence.

*SNORT*

I don't understand how that argument is supposed to work -- it even *SOUNDS* like obvious garbage.