Whose great idea was it to have a Mohammed cartoon competition?

I think there is a difference between saying something which may offend some people and deliberately going out of your way to be an arsehole.

The organisers and attendees at this gunfight (all 200 of them, wow impressive eh?) in my opinion fall into the arsehole category.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

Why?

What has the colour of their skin got to do with anything?

She obviously wouldn’t. However, she would probably display her disapproval on a blog or an interview on Fox News, maybe a placard or two with some shouting.

And the Westboro Baptist Church as well, they don’t need any excuse. Personally, I’d rather enjoy it turning into a ‘Heat’-type firefight between the two factions, Islamists and the Christian Right, specifically the WBC, and they all kill one another.
Loathsome individuals.

It is interesting that the American Muslim haterz publicised that they had “heavy security” for this event – it’s almost as if they expected something to happen…

yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

There is a very effective Jewish Lobby that is well co-ordinated and quick to react, the same doesn’t exist in the Islamic world.

yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

There is a very effective Jewish Lobby that is well co-ordinated and quick to react, the same doesn’t exist in the Islamic world

The Islamic world does react but they tend not to use the due legal process

We wouldn’t even know this event took place if two people hadn’t turned up with guns with the sole aim of murder, let’s not loose sight of that. Those organising sound pretty unpleasant and obviously were looking for the reaction that doesn’t justify the response or that we should live in fear of the response or even worse apologise for it, be it punch or a gun. It is fundamental to free speech just like all those who preceded us fighting for right of expression & identity. As Christopher Hitchens says not in my name.

yet when similar cartoons mocking the jewish faith are produced, they are labelled anti semitic and the publishers punished.

Can you point me to any of these cartoons that mock the Jewish faith being labelled as such?

I’ve seen plenty that are targeted at stereorypical carachteristics of Jews as a race but not really noticed any targeted at their faith

On a slight tangent, how much does an image have to look like the prophet for it to be offensive?
I mean if I present this –
and say it’s my abstraction of the prophet, will it cause offence?

Here you go ninfan:

just to show I hold no bias:

Bear in mind, only one of the 3 was an officially produced cover that was distributed by the publishers…

I don’t see the problem.

It’s Merica the home of the free and it’s their home, they can have massive shoot out party zombie style if they wish, do whatever they like …

Remember guns don’t kill people do.

Now what are the price for Glock 29, Bennelli M4, Ruger mini-30 and Tavor SAR nowadays?

🙄

JHJ – I think you proved my point, nobody seems to have been up in arms calling anyone anti-Semitic for publishing that picture (a parody of the CH one I believe)

pretty sure charly hebdo sacked one of it’s staff some years ago after he was accused of anti-semitism

You’re right scaredypants

It appears ninfan can’t read…

Bear in mind, only one of the 3 was an officially produced cover that was distributed by the publishers…

That said, I don’t really think it’s right to mock anyone’s beliefs, even if it does seem a bit silly to believe in old stories about different flavours of space ghosts.

But the disparity by the media is worrying, as it suggests there is a larger bias at work by those presenting us with information as fact…

Have to wonder why it is that cartoons depicting muslims are publicized widely through the media,

Really? I’ve got the impression the mainstream media hasn’t published any of the cartoons. As already said, we wouldn’t have heard about this Texas convention had a couple of lunatics not thought that the appropriate response to a cartoon was a firearm.

how much does an image have to look like the prophet for it to be offensive?

This is quite measured on the issue.

The problem is representation tending towards idolatry. Your purple rectangle is fine, as there is clearly no real sense in which it is a representation of the prophet and no risk of it getting between people and god.

Although presumably if you pushed it you’d get problems because claiming that the prophet was a purple rectangle was felt to be blasphemous.

🙂

Theres free speech, then there’s naivety.

Holding an event which will of course bring friction with it, and then leaving unarmed security officers as the only form of protection. Who thought that through?

Didnt the organisers tweet that ‘The War Has Begun’ after the shooting

its almost like they wanted to incite violence………

The US group was being deliberately confrontational as they are perfectly entitled to do so under US law.

No one got shot for drawing a picture of a Rabi or of God. You are not entitled to shoot someone for drawing a picture of Mohammed in any Western society.

Laws exist to protect religious freedom, there was nothing stopping an Islamist organisation bringing a legal action against Charlie Ebdo. As a matter of fact Charlie Ebdo has said it won’t draw Mohammed again, as a side effect of the attack the financial future of the agazine has been assured as they now have around 15 millions euros in the bank and have paid out some 3-4 million to the families of the murdered cartoonists.

EDIT:

That said, I don’t really think it’s right to mock anyone’s beliefs

Agreed @jj but many people here in our societies wanted the ability to mock Christianity whether by jokes or cartoons. So our laws of blasphemy where repealled. Those laws would have prevented mocking of Mohammed.

I hope it turns out to be a pair of white christians who decided to shoot the place up.

@MSP but it wasn’t was it ? Two room mates who had been under surveillance for trying to join Jihad in Somalia

Freedom of speech means freedom to offend.

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you’re gay, you’d be ok with that?

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you’re gay, you’d be ok with that?

@ransos – we had similar laws re religion but they where repealed as I posted earlier. Homophobic laws remain in place.

@ransos – we had similar laws re religion but they where repealed as I posted earlier. Homophobic laws remain in place.

Libel and homophobia laws curtail freedom of speech.

Once again this x1000:

I think it’s possible to simultaneously disapprove of intentionally offending people for no other reason than you don’t like their religion and you’re an arsehole, but also disapprove of shooting people for it. That’s the trouble with real life, there’s not always a goodie and a baddie.

However it does strike me that Pamella Geller[/url] was probably hoping for just such a disproportionate reaction. if extremists had managed to just ignore her and and brushed off her activities as those of an opinionated Housewife trying to stir up some Rednecks, then I’m sure given time her popularity would have dropped off and the “American Freedom Defense Initiative” would have disappeared… As it is one branch of Free speech based Extremism, leads to further retaliatory violent Extremism…

The vast majority of humanity manage to remain moderate and proportionate in their use of free of speech, it’s those with extreme views who espouse hatred looking for a reaction to confirm their world view and then hide behind their right to free speech who manage to balls it up for the rest of us… IMO.

@ransos

So if I printed homophobic lies about you on the front page of a national newspaper, and encouraged shopkeepers to not serve you because you’re gay, you’d be ok with that?

If they were lies about me that would be libel and I would have access to the courts for reparation. Remember that the eejits in Texas were not attacking a person they were attacking an idea. My views/beliefs are not sacrosanct. If someone wishes to challenge them fine, I may even change my mind. Same for everyone else.

Attacking a person (muslim/christian/atheist/gay/white/black etc.) is wrong.
Attacking an idea (religious/political etc.) is not wrong. There should never be a belief that cannot be criticized, regardless of how much a person believes in it. If you’re offended by your belief being criticized then I point back up to Stephen Fry’s article: tough, stop whining, support it with facts.

And yes – that has already been done many many many times, in my lifetime (attacking gay people), including loss of jobs at interviews and comments from people around me. I slap down personal attacks but if someone says “I don’t like the gays” then I think they are an idiot and ignore them.

If they were lies about me that would be libel and I would have access to the courts for reparation.

Which curtails freedom of speech.

Attacking a person (muslim/christian/atheist/gay/white/black etc.) is wrong.

Which curtails freedom of speech.

An interesting aside from a US-based lawyer on this specific issue. There are only a few areas in the US that ‘free speech’ is curtailed.

popehat[/url]

(To your response: no, libel doesn’t curtail free speech, it just makes [in the UK] someone justify their statements or be held liable, and the ‘attacking…’ part is my personal belief, which again does not curtail free speech but there may be laws in different countries which apply).

(To your response: no, libel doesn’t curtail free speech, it just makes [in the UK] someone justify their statements or be held liable, and the ‘attacking…’ part is my personal belief, which again does not curtail free speech but there may be laws in different countries which apply).

Libel curtails free speech: you can’t print anything you like without consequences.

Free speech is advanced in threads like this as an argument which trumps all others, yet those who advance it seem reluctant to acknowledge that we already restrict free speech. The debate is what those restrictions should be, and how far they should go.

There should never be a belief that cannot be criticized, regardless of how much a person believes in it

You can criticise the idea that not drawing cartoons of the prophet is stupid , idiotic, and unenforceable. What you are arguing is the freedom to do the thing rather than to criticise the thing.

It is not the same thing

As for free speech how far would you let someone promote the sexual abuse of children in pursuit of free speech? Rape ?Hate preaching? Advice on bomb making. All of these freedoms of speech are curtailed.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute it has to be weighed against other things

Libel curtails free speech: you can’t print anything you like without consequences.

Your point, caller? Free speech means you can say what you like, having to deal with the consequences of it are another issue. Something milder: “All 29″ wheel owners are idiots!” Does someone reacting to that with something like “No, you’re being horrible!” mean my free speech is curtailed? All libel is doing is involving lawyers. The *threat* of lawyers can cause self-censorship, but that’s another area.

The thing in the states about the cartoons *is* extremely well-defined in their first amendment. No ifs, no buts, a very narrow view of what isn’t protected free speech. In the UK there are laws that curtail free speech in certain areas, I agree that’s the truth. On this issue though, I’m with the US and my line is “Don’t attack people (unless they deserve it – Jimmy Saville anyone?) but ideas – go for it, I don’t care.”

Your point, caller? Free speech means you can say what you like, having to deal with the consequences of it are another issue.

Well no, because serious consequences limit what people are prepared to say. In practice, it is a curtailment.

You can criticise the idea that not drawing cartoons of the prophet is stupid , idiotic, and unenforceable.

Agreed. You can agree with any idea. Or disagree. Up to you.

What you are arguing is the freedom to do the thing rather than to criticise the thing.

If you mean ‘doing the thing’ means “Drawing an image of a religious icon” then yes, I do advocate those that want to do it should do so. Else some other person will say something like “Criticising 29ers is OK, but if you make a sign or something like a statue criticizing 29ers then that’s wrong.”

For example if you didn’t like the government of the day and say so fine, but ‘doing the thing’ and organising a protest is wrong?

It is not the same thing

It is – writing something about an idea is the same as saying it. In this case it was drawing something.

As for free speech how far would you let someone promote the sexual abuse of children in pursuit of free speech?

That’s incitement – not even the US allow that. But full marks at the trying to make me out as a child rape supporter routine. Come on JY, you’re a better man than that. 🙁

Rape ?

Incitement. Though look at “50 shades of grey” which many feminists have stated is a book about abuse not about a consenting BDSM relationship. I haven’t read but I’ll take their word for it. On literotica there are stories about non-consent. If you were to say, however, “I’m going to rape person X” then that is a threat which is not protected here.

Hate preaching?

In the UK that is against the law. In the US it is not (see: Westboro nutters).

Advice on bomb making.

I’m a chemist, don’t need to know that. Already know it, but it would be messy and I’d end up dead due to bad skillz. You’ll easy find that on the internet, along with how to make an atomic bomb. Again in the US it is free speech, but I guess the police keep a keen eye out. I was taught the structure and rough outline of semtex explosives at college. Should that be banned?

All of these freedoms of speech are curtailed.

In different countries there are different rules. I’m mainly talking about the subject, the US shootings.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute it has to be weighed against other things.

That’s very vague JY. “other things” What other things? Someone getting offended about religion? How about someone getting offended about breastfeeding? How about someone getting offended about politics?

Yes, freedom of speech has to be weighed against harm to others BUT the moment we start saying “you can’t say X as it has offended Y and Y may then kill/hurt someone” then the list gets bigger and bigger until you can’t say anything.

I suggest you read the popehat link. It is very interesting. He’s a pro-bono lawyer who deals with all sorts of stuff.

Your turn to answer now:

Do you support banning/curtailing free speech:

For religions (e.g. criticism of christianity/islam/buddhism etc.) also known as blasphemy, such as in this case where idiots drew some cartoons of someone who either didn’t exist or died a long long time ago?
For criticising the ruling monarch?
For criticising the ruling goverment?
For criticising 29″ wheels?
For certain political doctrines (any, whatever you fancy).

not even the US allow that. But full marks at the trying to make me out as a child rape supporter routine. Come on JY, you’re a better man than that.

That was not my intention my intention was to show that there was something where you did not support free speech.
Of course I do not think you are like that at all and I 100% apologise if that is what you thought I meant or if it reads like that.
Other things is just that it depends we could list scenarios for ever – see my wedding scenario and I think the right to abuse a bride is less important than the right to get wed without abuse. See also westbro at funerals.

I suggest you read the popehat link.

Link please as I have missed it

For religions (e.g. criticism of christianity/islam/buddhism etc.) also known as blasphemy, such as in this case where idiots drew some cartoons of someone who either didn’t exist or died a long long time ago?

I think legitimate criticism is perfectly fine. I think deliberately provoking them is just behaving like an arse and not something i wish to defend. If a legitimate critique was being made of any religion then I would defend them but I feel free speech is being rolled out for the equivalent of red knecks flicking two fingers up at Muslims. Its not a noble struggle . Imagine if some Mulsims went to the KKK and started burning the flag for example. Its not a legitimate protest its is just offensive.

For criticising the ruling monarch?

I am a member of republic

For criticising the ruling goverment?

Nope

For criticising 29″ wheels?

26 er till i die

For certain political doctrines (any, whatever you fancy).

Some of the hate filled nazi stuff is getting close to what I would ban tbh. I would imagine there is a “political” orginisation I would ban

Freedom of speech is not without limits is my only point and one can legitimately expect certain things For example it is reasonable for some to object to homosexuality but you also have the right to live free from abuse. We have to balance these. We cannot just stop them ever speaking out nor let them preach hate. We strike a balance

Here’s[/url] the link. Remember it is a US site for US laws. He’s just done a really good discussion about US copyright trolls ‘Prenda Law’ and their attempts to extort people out of money by claiming they’d downloaded pr0n.

The problem I have is that being offended is something you choose to be not something that someone gives you. I would imagine that most muslims regarding the cartoon thing just shrugged their shoulders and thought “Useless tossers!”. The word ‘offended’ has got too much power. Unfortunately with the ‘rednecks’ in the states the power of free speech cuts both ways. Perhaps they are offended by being called rednecks. Dunno, but in the same way they can draw images of the religious icon their opposites can draw pictures of Ayn Rand being a communist or something.

The problem with a “legitimate” criticism of, say, Christianity (to take the islam out of it) is that person A could say “I don’t think Jesus existed or that if he was he was actually God personified.” This, in my view, is a legitimate criticism, especially if backed up with some facts. If the pope, say, then got really offended by it do we then backpedal? In Islam that Mohammed chappie took on a child bride. This gets a lot of flack with some people calling him the p-word. As a result some Muslims are furious about that. Should that be banned?

I think we can all agree that the universal law should be “Don’t be a dick”. Unfortunately people on all sides continue to be so and therefore some laws have to be fixed down. I disagree with the people drawing cartoons but I believe they do have the right to do so; other people (“artists”) have done things like Piss-Christ (I think it’s a crucifix in a jar of urine – oh here it is on wikipedia and I would guess some from other religions). If everyone just ignored them they would go away. It is a bit like those threads where people would deliberately wind up TJ then sit back and watch the fireworks.

And I’m thinking 650b for my next bike!

The problem I have is that being offended is something you choose to be not something that someone gives you.

Its a bit of both as we have words that are offensive and people who are easily offended.
If what you said were true it would be literally impossible for me to try and be offensive…the moderators will vouch for this clearly not being the case 😉

Piss christ is interesting – i think it looks rather lovely tbh and not obvious what the medium is which gives it a totaly different meaning IMHO- but I am struggling to defend it as it seems overly insulting to those of faiths, Like with the cartoons its easy enough to criticise religion without resorting to a piss christ. Mrs JY is an artist she would say freedom of expression all the way

650 B – insert offensive joke about deviants here 😉

will read the link later and comment

Tactless **** inflammatory moronic ****

read the link it accepts there are limits so all we have to do now is discuss where we draw the line

IME I have yet to meet anyone who literally thinks anything goes with free speech , it does have limits even in the US

I tend to not disagree with the assessment and article and I guess the test here [ within US law]is the reasonable person in the streets reaction to the cartoons and it would pass [probably even amongst reasonable Muslims].