3 ms·

I feel sad about this whole ordeal. I feel that this is unwarranted provocation. (Disclosure: I am a muslim. And long time hacker news participant.) Muslims va

by mad44 16y ago

I feel sad about this whole ordeal. I feel that this is unwarranted provocation. (Disclosure: I am a muslim. And long time hacker news participant.) Muslims value their prophet a lot, as they also value Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and other prophets. The prophets are human, but they excelled in their lives by the choices they made, they served as great examples and deserve respect. Out of respect to prophet Muhammed, muslims would always follow with a short prayer every time they utter his name. Most muslims will refuse to name their children "Muhammed", because they don't want to call/yell their children with the name of the prophet, so they use variations on the name, such as Ahmed, Mehmed, Mustafa. Dead threats by the fanatics are unfounded and despicable. But, following on this with a provocation like this is equally unfounded and hurtful towards the muslims. As for people who feel like their freedoms are restricted if they were not allowed to draw and make fun of prophet Muhammed, I have hard time understanding them. Muslims are not dictating them to actively respect him. Not at all. They are just asking them not to go over their way to actively insult his memory. Instead of this hurtful and easy shot, why don't they all consider practicing their freedom of speech by wearing t-shirts that has bomb pictures and arabic inscriptions on it to the airports? Or, any other way that is offensive to the government?

amvp 16y ago
I don't think the people behind this look at this as provocation, but as retaliation. For those that haven't see this: Philip Pullman (who wrote a book titled 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' had a comment on free speech and the right not to be shocked that I think was quite beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=playe...! "It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on that subject"
- mad44 16y ago
  What is the line between freedom of speech and hate speech? Government also has a lot of limitations to freedom of speech. "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
  - henrikschroder 16y ago
    Where I am, hate speech is defined as advocating murder/violence/genocide against a group of people.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    People should be stopped when a particular instruction is given to violate the rights of a specific person. "People belonging to group <x> are terrible. They are snotty and we should shun them." Statements like these are usually vile examples of collectivism/racism. However, they do not call for the specific violation of another person's rights, and for that reason, must be regarded as protected speech, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them. Remember that the right to advocate a boycott is protected by this same principle. "John Doe is a member of <x>. It would be no bad thing if someone were to kill him, burn his house down, etc." Statements like these are not (and must not be) regarded as protected speech. They specifically incite people to violent behavior that violates the rights of a specific individual. or: "Jack and Jill live at 123 Gumdrop Lane, The North Pole, 12345. Their home phone number is (123) 456-7890. This is not a threat, but I think they are in great danger of something bad happening to them, because they have offended the Great Prophet." This statement, when posted on a web forum, is a specific call to action. Its poster should be prosecuted. To look at things this way is to do so objectively. The problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is that it criminalizes thought, which is a dangerous power for the government to have. Instead, we must fight actual threats, when someone makes them. All of us have the right to think whatever we want, to advocate for any position we want, as long as we don't call for the violation of a specific person's rights to life, to property, and to speech using property they own or are allowed to use voluntarily. One last bit: groups do not have special rights, e.g., ones not possessed by the individuals that make up the group. There is no right to not be offended by a statement that someone makes, and it doesn't matter if you're a group of one or a billion.
tome 16y ago
I take issue with your claim that these "prophets" served as great examples and deserve respect. They may do, they may not do, but I'm not going to self censor just because you claim they do. This isn't about believing our freedom to draw Mohammed is restricted. It's about believing our freedom is restricted full stop. Any time anyone says "We threaten to kill anyone who does X", where X is an activity that causes no more harm than hurt feelings, I think we should all take it upon ourselves to do X regardless of whether we would have wanted to or not beforehand. That's the way to preserve our freedom. To make sure we take (very limited) action to assert that we are not going to be bullied into submission (pun intended). Very few would ever have drawn a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed if it had not been for these death threats. If no radical muslims existed they wouldn't feel the urge to defend the free world from them, and would have no wish to insult the feelings of tolerant muslims.
DenisM 16y ago
Wrong t-shirt: extra pat-down search, and maybe denied boarding Wrong cartoon: head chop One of these two is more egregious than the other.

by mad44 16y ago

amvp 16y ago

I don't think the people behind this look at this as provocation, but as retaliation. For those that haven't see this: Philip Pullman (who wrote a book titled 'The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ' had a comment on free speech and the right not to be shocked that I think was quite beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=player_embedded# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3VcbAfd4w&feature=playe...! "It was a shocking thing to say and I knew it was a shocking thing to say. But no one has the right to live without being shocked. No one has the right to spend their life without being offended. Nobody has to read this book. Nobody has to pick it up. Nobody has to open it. And if you open it and read it, you don't have to like it. And if you read it and you dislike it, you don't have to remain silent about it. You can write to me, you can complain about it, you can write to the publisher, you can write to the papers, you can write your own book. You can do all those things, but there your rights stop. No one has the right to stop me writing this book. No one has the right to stop it being published, or bought, or sold or read. That's all I have to say on that subject"

mad44 16y ago
What is the line between freedom of speech and hate speech? Government also has a lot of limitations to freedom of speech. "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
- henrikschroder 16y ago
  Where I am, hate speech is defined as advocating murder/violence/genocide against a group of people.
- maxharris 16y ago
  People should be stopped when a particular instruction is given to violate the rights of a specific person. "People belonging to group <x> are terrible. They are snotty and we should shun them." Statements like these are usually vile examples of collectivism/racism. However, they do not call for the specific violation of another person's rights, and for that reason, must be regarded as protected speech, no matter how much you and I may disagree with them. Remember that the right to advocate a boycott is protected by this same principle. "John Doe is a member of <x>. It would be no bad thing if someone were to kill him, burn his house down, etc." Statements like these are not (and must not be) regarded as protected speech. They specifically incite people to violent behavior that violates the rights of a specific individual. or: "Jack and Jill live at 123 Gumdrop Lane, The North Pole, 12345. Their home phone number is (123) 456-7890. This is not a threat, but I think they are in great danger of something bad happening to them, because they have offended the Great Prophet." This statement, when posted on a web forum, is a specific call to action. Its poster should be prosecuted. To look at things this way is to do so objectively. The problem with the idea of a "hate crime" is that it criminalizes thought, which is a dangerous power for the government to have. Instead, we must fight actual threats, when someone makes them. All of us have the right to think whatever we want, to advocate for any position we want, as long as we don't call for the violation of a specific person's rights to life, to property, and to speech using property they own or are allowed to use voluntarily. One last bit: groups do not have special rights, e.g., ones not possessed by the individuals that make up the group. There is no right to not be offended by a statement that someone makes, and it doesn't matter if you're a group of one or a billion.

tome 16y ago

I take issue with your claim that these "prophets" served as great examples and deserve respect. They may do, they may not do, but I'm not going to self censor just because you claim they do. This isn't about believing our freedom to draw Mohammed is restricted. It's about believing our freedom is restricted full stop. Any time anyone says "We threaten to kill anyone who does X", where X is an activity that causes no more harm than hurt feelings, I think we should all take it upon ourselves to do X regardless of whether we would have wanted to or not beforehand. That's the way to preserve our freedom. To make sure we take (very limited) action to assert that we are not going to be bullied into submission (pun intended). Very few would ever have drawn a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed if it had not been for these death threats. If no radical muslims existed they wouldn't feel the urge to defend the free world from them, and would have no wish to insult the feelings of tolerant muslims.

DenisM 16y ago

Wrong t-shirt: extra pat-down search, and maybe denied boarding Wrong cartoon: head chop One of these two is more egregious than the other.