Soldier murdered in London

[Monti]

You're still not understanding how rights work. The right to free speech is not "the right to free speech without consequences" but "the right to speak and believe freely without suffering violent discrimination so long as you are not causing immediate harm".

If people respond to a cartoon with violence then they are infringing on the right to free-speech. This is not a case of irresponsibility, the cartoonist was doing nothing but drawing a cartoon that reflected a political opinion, as was the cartoonists right. That right was infringed the second people started making threats of violence.

When it comes to rights and responsibilities those who were members of the Islamic communities advocating violence failed in their responsibility with regards to free speech (if they ever recognised that right in the first place).

Free speech isn't instantiated by people paradoxically restricting what they say (out of some ill-concieved idea that we have a responsibility not to disagree with religious beliefs). In free speech the responsibility is on the audience to act maturely when they hear or see something they disagree with.

 

[jahm]

I'm not the local Islam expert but it appears that it is a no no in at least Sunni tradition. See the below link Depiction of Muhaofftopicd section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohaofftopicd,_Messenger_of_God_(film)

It's not forbidden but I wouldn't go around shaking hands with my left hand either. Maybe if I was an amputee and didn't have a right one.

 

[marieg]

That quote exemplifies your lack of understanding of free-speech. Free speech cannot exist as long as violent bullies (who you are implicit in protecting) are given moral currency in assaulting and killing people who they dislike.

 

[izchief360]

No one has denied that. That's obvious. But the consequences shouldn't be a free-for-all anything goes affair.
A person's right to react to what you do shouldn't include putting tires around people and setting them on fire and I find it baffling that you would accept such a reaction and say it is the fault of the person expressing the idea in the first place.
People can control themselves. They don't have to be violent when they aren't actually being attacked. People have that capacity.

To me muslim violence over some percieved slight is akin to a pub bully that kicks off when someone sits in his favourite chair.

 

[kuatolives]

Actually, you don't understand how rights work. Take free speech for example. You can say what you want. However, there are some things you can't say, like about or against the President for example. Then there are things that you could say but I wouldn't suggest it(like going to an African-American neighborhood and yelling the n-word as loud and as long as you could). That is how free speech works. It is free to say.

After you say what you wanted to get off your chest, you have to deal with how it was perceived by your target audience.

Once you are safe in your hospital bed recovering, then you can have your lawyers look into how your rights were infringed on and who you can sue for how much for your trouble.



No, in free speech the responsibility is on you to judge your audience and try not to say something that will have them wanting to rip your head off. Of course you can say those things, but unless you are Iron Man, you might not like the results.



Yet, if you are saying something that is bullying others, aren't you being a hypocrite if you don't want people to react in kind?

 

[Elijah]

So freedom of speech is, and forever will be, controlled by who can be the most violent?
Got you. What a lovely world.

Or how about we challenge violent people when they are violent and determine exactly what is appropriate in civil discourse?
Maybe do a cartoon about it to test the boundaries?
But that'd be useless right?
No one ever got anywhere by pushing the boundaries. Just accept things as they are and keep quiet.
Rosa Parks best sit down because she ain't gonna like what happens if she kicks up a fuss.

Ridiculous.

 

[elmehissim]

There are many things I wouldn't say, either for fear of violent reprisal (and simply out of moral courtesy). But that does not mean that the violence is justified or should be accepted. Freedom of speech is a moral construct it is prescriptive and tells us about what we "should" do. If there are elements of society who do not behave in accordance with that doctrine then we work to make those communities comply. We do not sit back and say that's how the world works.

Your definition of freedom of speech is trivial; it can be applied to any society, no matter what the conditions.

By your analysis a violent totalitarian dictatorship in which dissidents are killed and tortured still has freedom of speech.

 

[vwporscheaudi]

Actually, free speech has often been used to whip people into a frenzy at the behest of the person speaking. There are plenty of examples of this to hopefully make people think about what is said, and how it is said.

Sure, people should be responsible and able to control their own temper, but we already know how good that one's working. People have the capacity for control, love, and compassion, just as they have the capacity for anger, unreasonableness, and violence.



Again though, what do you think would've happened in a Christian society a couple hundred years ago? African-Americans were murdered and lynched in this country for just whistling at a white woman in the not so distant past, you'd think the husband of the woman and the other God-fearing Christians in the community would have turned the other cheek at least.

 

[SabastienG]

Right its a "no no" to Sunni's but not illegal in the country it was published.

Can I just establish your position please, are you saying that the following deaths were the fault of the artist and the paper publishing them?

Raz

 

[PropeshiaJones]

I have no idea what your point here is.
Those are examples of exactly why ideas and view points should be challenged and why it is brave (not foolish as you said) to do so in the face of violence.
Christian society a couple of hundred years ago was WRONG.
American society at the time of segregation was WRONG.
Muslims killing people because of cartoons is WRONG.

You are actually illsutrating exactly why it is so important to be able to challenge ideas even when doing so offends someone.

 

[sirnavieed]

Wow.

 

[KordaleM]

Explain to me why it is wrong to mock a religion, any religion. What makes religion special that it is above ridicule?

 

[abomb16]

Sums up my view, and i think those of some others here


Ahmed Younis - Re: Danish Cartoons - CNN International - YouTube

 

[amandagranados20]

I'm saying the original concept was not well thought out nor executed. Why couldn't they have interviewed various Muslim imams about the issue and asked their take on self censorship or the reasons why no images were made. No craven images does ring a bell so it's not just Islam.



I am saying that the deaths(and death threats) would not have occurred if the editor had done his job. This wasn't some ground breaking research of pressing social question that they were investigating, if it was, there should've been more thought to the potential consequences. They weren't fighting for anybody's civil rights, or anything else that was worth people dying over.

The aftermath of the original publishing was also handled with similar lack of sensitivity to the Muslim culture, readership, and religion, and resulted in people getting worked up(I'm sure there were some Muslim radicals who were glad this happened, just as I'm sure there were non-Muslim provocateurs who reveled in it as well).

Should the people who got enraged about the cartoons have been upset enough to call for blood? If it was me, I personally wouldn't. But I'm not Muslim, I wasn't raised in the same culture or religion that felt that something like this was a sin or punishable by violence or whatever, so I can't put my cultural filters on that. If this was women's rights or honor murders, it would be an entirely different matter.

It doesn't really matter what we think though, ask the cartoonist if it was worth almost being killed over.

 

[Wilco]

Sorry, key bit at 7 minutes.

Raz

 

[celtichouse7]

I accept almost all of these points. But do you know what would of prevented the deaths and death threats?

Muslim extremists respecting freedom of speech and not acting like spoilt children.

 

[woundedblackroses]

Explain to me why it is right to do so. Not just right, but why you would get a kick out of going up to somebody and explaining to them why their personal religion was worthy of ridicule and who appointed you the person best poised to do so. While you're at it, what benefit does it accrue you in this life and the next(okay, there might not be one but just in case).

Do you have that kind of free time on your hands that you would go around randomly mocking people's religion, something they potentially hold sacred and help them find meaning in life? Are you a blue meanie?

 

[rosa]

Considering that religion has a direct affect on the fields of education, LGBT+ rights, women and politics on an international level I think religion is fair game for criticism.

 

[ashleylynne]

But they have the right to go around mocking those who don't follow there religion? Treat them as lesser individuals. (not all of them offcourse)
Tell you across multi media, your going to hell, depending on sexual preference.

Double standards.

 

[draggster]

Well, think of it like this. What do you hold most sacred in life? How would you react if somebody was urinating on that from your point of view?

People are born and die everyday. If you hold your life and the lives of others as something worth protecting, you shouldn't waste it over trivial things. I would stand up to things I thought as oppressive and wrong, even at the chance that it would change my life, but that's just me. I wouldn't however go around making fun of another person's religion or race for some experiment or poorly thought out article. Everybody has to pick their own battles and find meaning in their own manner, but I really wonder if the artist of the cartoon thought that this issue was important enough to require 24 hour security.