4 ms·

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this." I see great actu

> "But not showing a religous figure on television has no effect apart from a negative one among the group. I see no harm in respecting this." I see great actual and potential harm, not to mention you don't know the effect before expressing/airing this to know it can be nothing but negative, such knowledge is impossible for any man to have, thats the point of the first amendment to the US constitution, and last I checked southpark was made there. You could have made the same argument about "Life of Brian", whats the point of ridiculing jesus after all? The result of that movie has been harmful? Thats not the case at all for me, "Life of Brian" is a very important movie for me, and so is southpark. What about all the muslims who could enjoy poking fun at Mohammed? How is it that their view is any less valid? Arguing for self-censorship legitimizes and treats muslims as a unified group, identified by voices of extremism. You delegate to them the task of identifying what is harmful and offensive, and once you've done that, it can be anything. A cartoon in an obscure danish newspaper. A 15 minute movie made in the netherlands. What children call a teddy bear in a classroom in Uganda. What southpark decides to do. This is a capitulation that erodes freedom of speech.

maxklein 16y ago
Is abstaining from calling a person a "nigger" eroding freedom of speech? No, it's simply a sign that you recognize that it will cause another person distress. Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech, because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed. And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people.
- xenthral 16y ago
  > "Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech" Actually it absolutely is, specially when these depictions have been accompanied by campaigns of intimidation, violence and even murder. > "because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed." Freedom of speech has existed long before Islam, but precedence has absolutely no currency here. > "And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people." Actually thats not the case at all, as I pointed on another post in this thread this is a tenet of Sunni, but not Shi'a muslims, several million of that billion don't see it as sin. And if they are offended so be it - there are no guarantees you won't be offended in this world, whats unacceptable is bullying and coercion aimed at chilling and eroding freedom of speech.
  - maxklein 16y ago
    But surely you understand that making fun of somebody else god is not eroding freedom of speech. Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason. There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about. This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion, and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment. The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors. If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason.
    - xenthral 16y ago
      > "Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason." Actually it doesn't have anything to do with them, if they are offended its because they chose to watch, I did not force them to. And what are these people you want to protect that they can't take an offensive world. I can, if they can't thats their problem, I won't limit what I say - these campaigns of intimidation also involve mere criticism of people that bare some similarities to Mohammed (see Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which is actually not about Mohammed). > "There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about." We're talking about private citizens who chose to make a movie here, this isn't a corporate environment, the southpark creators are not bound by any contract that they willingly signed that states they must curb their offensiveness to particular groups. [edit: actually they signed something with comedy central surely, but thats an internal affair for them, this has been released to the public now] > "This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion" Alternative to what? That doesn't even make sense, you were just mentioning, as if it had any weight, the fact they are 1 billion+ > "and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment." You don't know that, you're speculating, but you know what, I'll concede that a lot of it can be that. Theres also a lot of anti-catholic sentiment, a LOT of anti-atheist sentiment, etc. I believe freedom of speech covers hate speech as well. "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters" - Rosa Luxemburg. > "The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors." Actually I will stand up against stupid australian censorship and criticize it. One doesn't preclude the other. > "If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason." Actually I think the place that needs freedom of speech the most in the world right now is the muslim world, and we should lead by example, and yes, the example of mocking, and iconoclasm. And I know muslims out there that agree with that position.

maxklein 16y ago

Is abstaining from calling a person a "nigger" eroding freedom of speech? No, it's simply a sign that you recognize that it will cause another person distress. Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech, because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed. And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people.

xenthral 16y ago
> "Not showing the prophet on a screen is not eroding freedom of speech" Actually it absolutely is, specially when these depictions have been accompanied by campaigns of intimidation, violence and even murder. > "because this rule has been in place longer than America has existed." Freedom of speech has existed long before Islam, but precedence has absolutely no currency here. > "And abstaining from showing it is just a sign of respect for a culture of a billion people." Actually thats not the case at all, as I pointed on another post in this thread this is a tenet of Sunni, but not Shi'a muslims, several million of that billion don't see it as sin. And if they are offended so be it - there are no guarantees you won't be offended in this world, whats unacceptable is bullying and coercion aimed at chilling and eroding freedom of speech.
- maxklein 16y ago
  But surely you understand that making fun of somebody else god is not eroding freedom of speech. Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason. There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about. This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion, and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment. The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors. If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason.
  - xenthral 16y ago
    > "Rather, you're just provoking someone else for no reason." Actually it doesn't have anything to do with them, if they are offended its because they chose to watch, I did not force them to. And what are these people you want to protect that they can't take an offensive world. I can, if they can't thats their problem, I won't limit what I say - these campaigns of intimidation also involve mere criticism of people that bare some similarities to Mohammed (see Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, which is actually not about Mohammed). > "There is a lot of censorship going on in the world, and a lot of real things that you cannot say without being harshly criticized and thrown out of your job or something. That's what you should be concerned about." We're talking about private citizens who chose to make a movie here, this isn't a corporate environment, the southpark creators are not bound by any contract that they willingly signed that states they must curb their offensiveness to particular groups. [edit: actually they signed something with comedy central surely, but thats an internal affair for them, this has been released to the public now] > "This particular example, is just an attack on an alternative religion" Alternative to what? That doesn't even make sense, you were just mentioning, as if it had any weight, the fact they are 1 billion+ > "and what really hides behind this "freedom of speech" diversion is cultural intolerance and anti-muslim sentiment." You don't know that, you're speculating, but you know what, I'll concede that a lot of it can be that. Theres also a lot of anti-catholic sentiment, a LOT of anti-atheist sentiment, etc. I believe freedom of speech covers hate speech as well. "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters" - Rosa Luxemburg. > "The people who will argue that it should be allowed to mock another persons God will say nothing when Australia censors." Actually I will stand up against stupid australian censorship and criticize it. One doesn't preclude the other. > "If you want to fight for freedom of speech, then fight for real freedom of speech, not for this type of cultural attacks that try to use freedom of speech as their reason." Actually I think the place that needs freedom of speech the most in the world right now is the muslim world, and we should lead by example, and yes, the example of mocking, and iconoclasm. And I know muslims out there that agree with that position.