4 ms·

Exactly. Whenever we self-censor because of terrorist threats, we send the message that threats work. Threats will get you want you want. If we consistently re

Exactly. Whenever we self-censor because of terrorist threats, we send the message that threats work. Threats will get you want you want. If we consistently replied with "we don't listen to threats; if you follow up, you'll be punished," then crazies with agendas wouldn't be able to push the whole world around. Not that I'd find it easy to publish something, just for humor's sake, that could get me or my loved ones killed. But if I thought it was truly an important message, I hope I'd publish it.

ErrantX 17y ago
> But if I thought it was truly an important message, I hope I'd publish it. Just for the record; I entirely agree here! If it is important then it needs to be said. But if you say something for fun (which I think one should be allowed to do!) and because of it a bomb goes off elsewhere in the world - that is hard to justify. > If we consistently replied with "we don't listen to threats; if you follow up, you'll be punished," Yeh, the problem with applying this to extremism is that, for the most part, it doesn't work. On one hand it gives them ammunition to "legitimise" their actions and on the other punishment isn't necessarily a concern for some. They will kill anyway.
- smallblacksun 17y ago
  No. If south park had shown Muhammad, and someone had gotten killed because of it, the only people to blame would be the ones who killed them, not anyone involved with south park. As cliche as it is, if we let them dictate what we do and do not do, the terrorists win.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Yes, to a point. But there is an element of blame too; they must know what reaction their actions would provoke - and yet they choose to continue with them. There is, perhaps, only a small portion of blame - but it is akin to throwing a red cape between a bull and a man with his back turned. I think it is morally justified to think: "if I say this will some idiots try to kill other people? perhaps I should tone it down"
    - inerte 17y ago
      What will happen is that in some time there will nothing left to be said. Mind you, I'm drawing a line between incitement (flat out saying "go and do something wrong") and saying something knowing others, in reaction, will do something wrong. You're opening the opportunity for every type of speech to be silenced. Example? If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. Now you see, we can't even discuss the chance of having a discussion. Also, one last point to be made: How do you "tone down" against a belief that EVERY visual representation of a person is wrong?
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. The only real point there is that is an unlikely threat. I can ignore it. If a substantial number of people developed a long history of killing ponies and then made that threat I might reconsider. One of two things has to happen in my mind. Either we have to ignore the terrorists - which is my preferred solution, but I highly doubt the media will let us. Or we avoid inciting them for a bit as best we can whilst eradicating the problem.
        inerte 17y ago
        You know that blame means punishment right? I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... If you think "of course not, don't be silly", then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. What's a substantial amount of people, how much time is a long history? You're saying there's a line that speech should not cross, because after a certain point bad things will happen. Where is that line? You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? A civilian committee? Should I use "common sense" (as if there's anything common in 2 billion people and 2 major religions spanning 2 thousand years). Or will I only know if what I said was okay after someone killed? There are serious implications on who you choose to blame, I don't think you've thought this one through.

ErrantX 17y ago

> But if I thought it was truly an important message, I hope I'd publish it. Just for the record; I entirely agree here! If it is important then it needs to be said. But if you say something for fun (which I think one should be allowed to do!) and because of it a bomb goes off elsewhere in the world - that is hard to justify. > If we consistently replied with "we don't listen to threats; if you follow up, you'll be punished," Yeh, the problem with applying this to extremism is that, for the most part, it doesn't work. On one hand it gives them ammunition to "legitimise" their actions and on the other punishment isn't necessarily a concern for some. They will kill anyway.

smallblacksun 17y ago
No. If south park had shown Muhammad, and someone had gotten killed because of it, the only people to blame would be the ones who killed them, not anyone involved with south park. As cliche as it is, if we let them dictate what we do and do not do, the terrorists win.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Yes, to a point. But there is an element of blame too; they must know what reaction their actions would provoke - and yet they choose to continue with them. There is, perhaps, only a small portion of blame - but it is akin to throwing a red cape between a bull and a man with his back turned. I think it is morally justified to think: "if I say this will some idiots try to kill other people? perhaps I should tone it down"
  - inerte 17y ago
    What will happen is that in some time there will nothing left to be said. Mind you, I'm drawing a line between incitement (flat out saying "go and do something wrong") and saying something knowing others, in reaction, will do something wrong. You're opening the opportunity for every type of speech to be silenced. Example? If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. Now you see, we can't even discuss the chance of having a discussion. Also, one last point to be made: How do you "tone down" against a belief that EVERY visual representation of a person is wrong?
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. The only real point there is that is an unlikely threat. I can ignore it. If a substantial number of people developed a long history of killing ponies and then made that threat I might reconsider. One of two things has to happen in my mind. Either we have to ignore the terrorists - which is my preferred solution, but I highly doubt the media will let us. Or we avoid inciting them for a bit as best we can whilst eradicating the problem.
      - inerte 17y ago
        You know that blame means punishment right? I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... If you think "of course not, don't be silly", then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. What's a substantial amount of people, how much time is a long history? You're saying there's a line that speech should not cross, because after a certain point bad things will happen. Where is that line? You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? A civilian committee? Should I use "common sense" (as if there's anything common in 2 billion people and 2 major religions spanning 2 thousand years). Or will I only know if what I said was okay after someone killed? There are serious implications on who you choose to blame, I don't think you've thought this one through.