Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   We should censor the Muhammad YouTube video because the First Amendment is clearly less important than capitulating to a strident, unbending Bronze Age religious ideology which can't handle the occasional punch on the nose   (slate.com) divider line 69
    More: Asinine, First Amendment, Muhammad YouTube, United States, muslims, marketplace of ideas, free speech, identity politics, ideology  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Sep 2012 at 3:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-26 11:58:49 AM  
9 votes:

vudukungfu: They ought to be ashamed.


intlxpatr.files.wordpress.com

The sooner we all stop assuming they are all alike, the sonner this crap stops.
2012-09-26 12:15:14 PM  
7 votes:
But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world-and not just Muslims-see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.

no.

look, if you believe that speech should be regulated and 'yield to other values and need for order' than you missed the point of this country. I don't say this often but, if you cannot understand why unrestricted speech is ESSENTIAL to maintaining good government (among other things) then you really don't belong here. either take a refresher course in the 1st amendment or pack your bags and move somewhere else because the Bill of Rights is there for a very good reason.

now, have we always lived up to our higher ideals? of course not. But we've always tried to do our best to live up to those higher ideals, and that's really all you can ask of any government - that they find a higher standard of behavior worth aspiring too and then try their best to reach it. to demand that citizens in THIS country censor their speech to calm the fears and concerns of someone half a world away is not only insulting it's asinine. I will not do it, and I will not censor anyone else. In fact, I might even go out and specifically offend those people in another country JUST to rile them up...and you can't stop me. My words might inspire riots and chaos around the globe...and you can't shut me up. Because that's the law in this country, my speech is protected. I can say pretty much anything I want (Mohammad is a piker! Jesus Christ was a pot smoking hippie! Yaweh isn't the One God, he's just one of many, PC is better than Mac!) and nobody can stop it.

so yeah, the rest of the world needs to suck it up and just deal with it. sorry if you are offended but that's entirely on you guys, not me. Try not to riot and murder one another today, ok?
2012-09-26 01:32:00 PM  
6 votes:

Aarontology: [www.agnostic-library.com image 450x563]


www.israellycool.com
2012-09-26 11:51:56 AM  
5 votes:
How about this:

1. Don't touch the 1st Amendment
2. Don't be a douchebag
2012-09-26 11:48:54 AM  
5 votes:
Fine they can have it their way. We can start by outlawing slate.com
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 01:04:41 PM  
3 votes:

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?



Well, yes. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are required to publish or broadcast your speech for you.
2012-09-26 12:22:07 PM  
3 votes:
Dear Eric Posner of Slate.com,

Whether they understand it or not, our support of freedom of speech does not equate to agreement with the speech...just the support of an individual's freedom to exercise it. I, for one, refuse to capitulate our freedoms to appease another country out of fear of their reactions to citizens exercising our freedom. That being said, I'm going to exercise my First Amendment rights to tell you to kindly go fark yourself. I'll further add if other nations don't like our right to freedom of speech, they can kindly go fark themselves as well.
2012-09-26 11:58:24 AM  
3 votes:
So ~570-632 CE is now considered the bronze age?
2012-09-26 07:10:44 PM  
2 votes:

Ant: I've never seen large groups of Christians rioting and breaking shiat because someone made an offensive movie about Jesus. Mostly they just whine about it.


American Christians. In Africa they'll riot, burn gays and eat albinos.
2012-09-26 04:44:19 PM  
2 votes:
blog.nbc.com

Their crime?

Saying OUT LOUD that they weren't proud the president was from their state.

Yeah... TELL ME MORE about freedom of speech, America. Tell me more about this "Tea Party" of yours...
2012-09-26 01:26:30 PM  
2 votes:
Freedom has a price, and being offended is its cost.

As a veteran I cringe at what the WBC does at military funerals, but I dont fight against them attempting to silence them. Their words as hateful as they may be must be allowed. When you start limiting speech for any reason, you open up a can of worms of possibilities. Yes, WBC offends the shiat out of me, but I will be there standing up for their right to spew their ignorant bullshiat because one day, something that I hold near and dear to my heart, could end up being banished using a precedent like this.
2012-09-26 01:10:55 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

youtube is google's front yard.
They're not required to let you post signs there.

so i'm a telcom corporation and I decide that hey - f*ck those Occupy people. I think they're asshats. so I have my techs work some mojo to make it difficult for Occupy people to use my section of the intertubes and make it damn near impossible for them to talk to one another. oh, and I find a way to charge them extra to boot, because f*ck you, i'm evil. is that ok too? hey, congress isn't involved so it's totally cool, right?


And this is why I belive in Net Neutrality.
2012-09-26 01:10:54 PM  
2 votes:

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?


Not cool, per se. But as a private enterprise, Google/YouTube is under no requirement to suffer the consequences of someone else's freedom of expression. But they've thus far chosen to honor the spirit of the First Amendment and I say good for them. They're also not required to coddle someone else's sensitivities. The point is, it's their choice.
2012-09-26 01:10:51 PM  
2 votes:

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?

I wouldn't say its cool, but it is their house their rules.

Do you get upset that Fark won't let you post pancake recipes in this thread?



Ingredients

1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon white sugar
1 1/4 cups milk
1 egg
3 tablespoons butter, melted

Directions

In a large bowl, sift together the flour, baking powder, salt and sugar. Make a well in the center and pour in the milk, egg and melted butter; mix until smooth.
Heat a lightly oiled griddle or frying pan over medium high heat. Pour or scoop the batter onto the griddle, using approximately 1/4 cup for each pancake. Brown on both sides and serve hot.
2012-09-26 01:10:16 PM  
2 votes:

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'd say the US undervalues freedom of speech since we've got tards willing to give it up.


As well as others abusing it, knowing full well the dangers it poses. It's one thing to say something that will get you killed. It's quite another to say something that will get others killed. I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe in personal responsibility. With any right comes the responsibility to use it for good, not for harm, otherwise you risk losing that right you fought so hard for in the first place.
2012-09-26 11:52:04 AM  
2 votes:
Bronze Age, huh.
2012-09-27 01:34:27 PM  
1 votes:

Rich Cream: What good will censoring it in the US do? The trouble isn't occurring here.


The problem is that in many other countries their government actually DOES censor what they see, hear, and read, so they quite naturally think that this is the way things are (or should be). The logical conclusion is that every government controls to some extent what the people in their country see, hear and read, just like their government does, and if the government has that kind of power then it also has that kind of responsibility. Therefore, any media produced in that country must also have been sanctioned by their government, and that the government is ultimately responsible for its content.

Good thing we don't do that sh*t here.
2012-09-27 10:38:32 AM  
1 votes:
Obama was trying to get the stupid film off of YouTube before he made his speech at the UN.

They've been having it both ways on the issue, but Obama's speech to the UN was a step in the right direction.
2012-09-27 12:25:49 AM  
1 votes:

nosferatublue: "But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world-and not just Muslims-see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point."

This is the whiny liberal counterpart to the following:

"She was raped because she dressed like a slut. If only we made our girls stop dressing like sluts, we'd see a lot fewer rapes"


Skimming his other "offerings", I don't think this guy's a liberal.

I think he's just a retard.
2012-09-26 11:30:12 PM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Not an expert on the internet or the ME but mightn't it be helpful to have regional blocks on some material? A lot is flagged for adult content already. Would it be difficult to block access to some things outside the US or in particular countries or regions?

I have to say I haven't given much thought to the international aspects of the 1st Amendment.


It's an objectively good idea to have free speech. As objectively good as cooking meat, looking both ways before crossing a busy street, and not poking bee hives with a stick.

So as far as I'm concerned, a politically-protected right to free speech is something the ENTIRE WORLD should recognize. Free speech isn't an "American right;" it's a *human* right.
2012-09-26 10:59:51 PM  
1 votes:

JesusJuice: I would rather we kill every living being in the ME than curtail free speech one whit.



I'd much rather we just kept on like we're doing, and realized that people in the Middle East will eventually learn to "live with it" while accepting it's just not going to happen overnight.
2012-09-26 10:58:03 PM  
1 votes:

tony41454: NBC, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, CNN, etc. They're all in the tank for Obama. So what are you going to do?


Yes, if everyone's against you, it's because they're in the tank for the other guy. It can't possibly be because you're a fnckhead.
2012-09-26 10:34:16 PM  
1 votes:

tony41454: lantawa

WorldCitizen: lantawa: WorldCitizen: You're not going to convince anyone but the most ideological (who will already believe anything anti-Obama anyway) with that site.

Translated: You're not going to convince everyone but the most ideological (who will already believe anything Obama anyway) with that site.

So you're telling me that Breitbart is a real journalism site with unbiased, fact based reporting?

Breitbart's slanted, true.

And so is NBC, ABC, CBS, MSMBC, CNN, etc. They're all in the tank for ObamaRomney. So what are you going to do?


I'm kidding of course, they're not in the tank for Romney, they just give him a massive handicap because he sucks so bad and needs help. They're "in the tank" for corporate profits and infotainment bullshiat, which includes preferential treatment to the GOP because they are skilled whiners, always pissing and moaning about "liberal media" that bends over backwards to be nice to 'em.
2012-09-26 10:13:18 PM  
1 votes:

Noam Chimpsky: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.


You can copy and paste better than that. Here's the quote in context:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt. It must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women. It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.

(APPLAUSE)

The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources. It must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with. There's is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.


Have you no decency, sir? No honesty or integrity?
2012-09-26 08:01:57 PM  
1 votes:

vartian: vudukungfu: They ought to be ashamed.

[intlxpatr.files.wordpress.com image 403x403]

The sooner we all stop assuming they are all alike, the sonner this crap stops.


The same needs to be said of both sides. We all get lumped in as the Great Satan and they all get lumped in as extremist terrorists. Meanwhile 95% of the world sits in the middle not burning things or being bigots as everything crumbles.

We need to stop acting like extremists speak for anyone but themselves.
2012-09-26 07:12:25 PM  
1 votes:

Ant: MrBallou: Fine with me, as long as you apply it equally to all strident, unbending Bronze Age [sic] religious ideologies that can't handle the occasional punch on the nose.

[i47.tinypic.com image 250x252]

I've never seen large groups of Christians rioting and breaking shiat because someone made an offensive movie about Jesus. Mostly they just whine about it.

/atheist


keylock71: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing "Piss Christ," and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece - there are 10 prints - has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden. Link


Yeah, this and that aren't the same thing, but accuracy is important.

Personally I was interested with what Clinton said about a repressive society looking desperately for an excuse to cut loose.
2012-09-26 06:45:56 PM  
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: The same Total Farkers that proudly display the Spaghetti god are such hypocrites when it comes to displying Muhammad. Their true colors are showed. They are bullies and cowards that care not about freedom of speech, but making fun of people they do not believe will respond back in violence.

Next time you make fun of Christianity, Christians will not go riot and kill everyone in a Swedish Embassy. Are you so sure Muslims would not do so?


They do in places like Nigeria and Uganda - you know, where they are not affluent, and educated, like Americans?
You like to compare apples to oranges because you think it makes your oranges look better.
Right now, there are tens of millions of unemployed, underemployed, unlaid men between the ages of 18 and 35 in the middle east. i don't care if they worship My Little F**king Pony - there's going to be trouble, and you can take that to the bank.
2012-09-26 06:43:31 PM  
1 votes:
Eric Posner clerked for a Reagan Appointed judge and has been writing for years about how scary terrorists are. He also has not donated to a political candidate according to Open Secrets.

I'm not sure where the whole "liberal" thing is coming from here.
Ant
2012-09-26 06:23:00 PM  
1 votes:

ignatius_crumbcake: This is the liberal equivalent of conservative derp.


This person is not expressing liberal ideas, they are expressing stupid ideas. Luckily for them, that's not against the law.
2012-09-26 05:50:50 PM  
1 votes:

Talondel: jasimo: Exactly. The 1st Amendment ensures that the government won't stop you from saying what you want. You can get up on your soapbox and say what the hell you want as long as you're not inciting violence, etc., but no one (newspapers/YouTube/Fark/Free Republic/Google) is required to help you spread your message.
The predictability of violence resulting from portrayals of Mohammed raises interesting questions about whether it rises to the level of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. I don't think it does, but I can see the argument.
Suffice it to say, anyone who portrays Mohammed in such a way as it's likely to cause people to react violently is an asshat of the first order. They're putting it out there with the full knowledge that there's a good chance that violence will ensue. If it does ensue, are they the proximate cause?
Should violence ensue? Of course not, but it's as predictable as a hangover.

One thing that no one has mentioned yet is the unintended consequences of censoring speech based on how violently people react to it. If you make it clear that you're willing to censor speech if the risk of violence is great enough, you encourage everyone who wants something censored to threaten (or actually carry out) violence in response. If you want to protect free speech, the only way to do so is to ignore those who threaten or carry out violence in response. Censorship in response to thuggery just encourages more thuggery.

As usual, South Park had this one right.


1) Theoretically, yes. But realistically, the insulting depiction of Mohammed is the only thing in the world today that predictably results in widespread unrest/violence. It's unique.
2) The only reason more people/Americans don't depict Mohammed insultingly is that they're aware of the ramifications and aren't total asshats.
3) Making a law forbidding the insulting depiction of Mohammed would be a terrible idea.
4) If the US government WERE to try to curb speech regarding Mohammed, the only result would be a reactionary flood of tens of thousands of incredibly vile depictions of Mohammed.
2012-09-26 04:40:38 PM  
1 votes:

ArcadianRefugee: Wow. I can now add Slate to my list of "dumbest places to visit online, no matter how bored I am."


Slate specializes in contrarianism as fake intellectualism.
2012-09-26 04:39:13 PM  
1 votes:

beta_plus: ...whenever you found it convenient. Now here we are with an American President going "meh" over American Diplomats being murdered because someone in America exercised his right to free speech.

Oh, and I'm sure you would be just as outraged about this if it had been a video criticizing Christian Fundamentalism. Not ...


Oh what did you want the President to do then, nuke the area? Stop being a reactionary twat. Also, the President did the opposite of "meh" and condemned the attacks while expressing condolences for the victims. Of course if I were buying into the narrative you've clearly bought into I would probably think Obama murdered the ambassador himself to retaliate for Romney expressing his free speech by making the film.
2012-09-26 04:32:38 PM  
1 votes:

Without Fail: So, can we put kiddie porn on YouTube?

NO? There are LIMITS to FREE SPEECH?

We have things that we consider to be obscene.

Muslims find depictions of Mohammad to be obscene.


We don't ban child porn because it's obscene. We ban child porn because children were violated in order to produce it. It's about competing rights and in that case (and in very few others) we consider the rights of children not to be violated to be above the rights of people to show or see children being violated.
2012-09-26 04:25:47 PM  
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: I can't believe people let the media tell them that the video is what caused the problem in the first place.


They had some help.

www.freewoodpost.com
2012-09-26 04:21:36 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: R.A.Danny: Weaver95: R.A.Danny: Weaver95: R.A.Danny: Weaver95: if they pay their rent on time, don't damage the property and obey the law/don't bring the cops to the front yard at 2am...then I don't care what they do with their spare time. I wouldn't like them very much but if they're a paying customer then hey, have at it.

Pay for youtube?

Youtube received death threats, they didn't just have picket sighs. Hundreds of people have already died. You'd kick their asses out too.

no, actually I'd use the whole thing in an advertising campaign.

From your grave?

if necessary, yes.

I'd find another tenant myself.

it's wrong to judge a tenant based on their politics, in fact I think there are anti-discrimination laws that might even come in to play.


Just quoting your most recent post to address your concerns, and not really the quoted post itself.

I think the dichotomy comes from a misunderstanding in re: suppression of free speech.

A corporation deciding to not publish something, affects your ability to distribute your speech, but does not restrict your rights. This is no more suppression than a boycott of a corporation is a suppression of that corporation's free speech. (Chick-Fil-A for example.)

A government mandating by law that you cannot distribute your speech and imposes penalties if you attempt to, restricts your rights.

The difference is in the law, and in punishment. A corporation does not have to abide your speech, but they cannot penalize you via the law. They can only refuse service. This is not an infringement of your rights.

The government making your brand of speech illegal, and punishing you for it, most certainly is.
2012-09-26 04:20:46 PM  
1 votes:

slayer199: Dear Eric Posner of Slate.com,


He doesn't work for Slate, he's a law professor at the University of Chicago.

Diogenes: I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.


Among law professors it is absolutely a liberal/conservative divide. Liberal leaning folks championed the broad reading of the 1st Amendment that we have today largely in response to efforts by conservatives to censor or suppress the speach of liberal leaning groups (i.e. communists, socialists, hippies) after the end of WWII.

In the years since then it has become typical for liberal law professors to support things like hate speech bans. Those laws occasionally draw support from extreme social conservatives who want to outlaw various forms of blasphemy as well. However, almost all support for such laws in legal circles comes from mainstream liberals like Posner. His view is (sadly) not outside the norm for liberal law professors. See, for example Jeremy Waldron at NYU, and Peter Spiro at Temple. Such laws would currently run afoul of the Constitution, but professors like Waldron and Spiro think the courts should simple reconstrue the 1st Amendement as not protecting hate speech, in line with what is typical in other western countries.

They are right about one thing, most other western democracies do ban at least some forms of hate speech. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Australia all have laws banning certain types of hate speech. Israel Germany, and France forbid the sale of Nazi regalia and Mein Kampf. Holocaust denial is a crime in Canada, Germany and France.

Those countries mentioned have still managed to have functioning democracies without free speech protections as broad as those that we have in the U.S, so that part of their argument is certainly valid.

By contrast, most conservative or libertarian leaning law professors that deal in first amendment issues (what few there are) generally prefer to continue on with the broad definition of 1st Amendment protections that we've had since the 60s. That's not necessarily consistent with typical conservative positions on Constitutional interpretation, which normally suggest we should look to the intent of the founders in interpreting what they meant by "freedom of speech," but in this case it's likely that the founders actually took a narrower view of free speech than we do today. See for example, Eugene Volokh.
2012-09-26 04:20:06 PM  
1 votes:

beta_plus: [img.myconfinedspace.com image 700x559]

Oh, wait, Captain America is making President Peace Prize look bad? He's just a homophobic racist then.


Bill O'Reilly: "I didn't like the line in the speech about 'We don't have to compromise our values to protect ourselves.' I think sometimes we do."

Jon Stewart, in response: "If you don't stick to your values when they're being tested, they're not values, they're ... hobbies."
2012-09-26 04:15:26 PM  
1 votes:

beta_plus: I love how liberals aren't even pretending to defend free speech anymore. Your rights end when it prevents liberals from getting what they want.

Bash gun nuts all you want, but they've been very consistent for the last 40 years that the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans.


You're a farking idiot. If any political label applies to me, it's "liberal," and I'm defending free speech every time this subject comes up. I also own a bunch of guns and am a defender of the 2nd Amendment as well, so fark off and quit trying to pigeonhole people you douche.
2012-09-26 04:10:05 PM  
1 votes:

beta_plus: I love how liberals aren't even pretending to defend free speech anymore. Your rights end when it prevents liberals from getting what they want.

Bash gun nuts all you want, but they've been very consistent for the last 40 years that the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans.


I reiterate....

Additionally, seems to me all the libs here are siding with free speech.

But far be it for me to suggest you stem the manure that flows freely from your mouth. First amendment and all.
2012-09-26 04:07:51 PM  
1 votes:
I love how liberals aren't even pretending to defend free speech anymore. Your rights end when it prevents liberals from getting what they want.

Bash gun nuts all you want, but they've been very consistent for the last 40 years that the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans.
2012-09-26 04:07:51 PM  
1 votes:

beta_plus: [img.myconfinedspace.com image 700x559]

Oh, wait, Captain America is making President Peace Prize look bad? He's just a homophobic racist then.


No, you're just making yourself look like a horse's ass who can't seem to comment on the topic. Ever.

Keep it up, though. You're doing a fantastic job of it.
2012-09-26 04:05:30 PM  
1 votes:
img.myconfinedspace.com

Oh, wait, Captain America is making President Peace Prize look bad? He's just a homophobic racist then.
2012-09-26 04:00:37 PM  
1 votes:
I'm not saying we should censor the video. However we should beat the person who edited the video with a sack of doorknobs to the tune of the Music Man. For being a complete idiot.
2012-09-26 03:59:02 PM  
1 votes:
That dude's from Chicago Law? Yeesh. Sounds like the crazy is leaking over from their school of economics.
2012-09-26 03:50:41 PM  
1 votes:

Stratohead: people in the USA are still getting arrested for selling porn to consenting adults under "obscenity statutes", some get jail time, a guy here in Dallas is now a "convicted sex offender" for selling some printed hentai to an off duty non-vice cop a few years back. While this is all an injustice... if THAT can still occur on a regular basis AND withstand court appeals...then surely we can pull one piece of shiat video to appease some violent out of work meat heads across the globe?


1) the video would still exist and be available online
2) we'll need to set up a department that monitors for offenses to violent meat heads to catch these things before they spread.
3) If that's how we're gonna do it, I'm about to get pretty violent and meat-heady about the evening line up on TLC.
2012-09-26 03:44:50 PM  
1 votes:
The far left: Where conservative religion is bad, but Islam is...awesome? Even though majority Islamic countries are almost wholly unfair to gays, women, and minority religions within them?

It makes so much sense.
2012-09-26 03:43:59 PM  
1 votes:

enry: How about banning the film as the actors in it had their lines re-dubbed and their opinions were either mangled or misrepresented?


I'd also like to ban flip flops, and men wearing scarfs in the summer.
2012-09-26 03:42:46 PM  
1 votes:
What good will censoring it in the US do? The trouble isn't occurring here.
2012-09-26 03:42:30 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world-and not just Muslims-see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.

no.

look, if you believe that speech should be regulated and 'yield to other values and need for order' than you missed the point of this country. I don't say this often but, if you cannot understand why unrestricted speech is ESSENTIAL to maintaining good government (among other things) then you really don't belong here. either take a refresher course in the 1st amendment or pack your bags and move somewhere else because the Bill of Rights is there for a very good reason.

now, have we always lived up to our higher ideals? of course not. But we've always tried to do our best to live up to those higher ideals, and that's really all you can ask of any government - that they find a higher standard of behavior worth aspiring too and then try their best to reach it. to demand that citizens in THIS country censor their speech to calm the fears and concerns of someone half a world away is not only insulting it's asinine. I will not do it, and I will not censor anyone else. In fact, I might even go out and specifically offend those people in another country JUST to rile them up...and you can't stop me. My words might inspire riots and chaos around the globe...and you can't shut me up. Because that's the law in this country, my speech is protected. I can say pretty much anything I want (Mohammad is a piker! Jesus Christ was a pot smoking hippie! Yaweh isn't the One God, he's just one of many, PC is better than Mac!) and nobody can stop it.

so yeah, the rest of the world needs to suck it up and just deal with it. sorry if you are offended but that's entirely on you guys, not me. Try not to riot and murder one another tod ...


Actually that part isn't entirely true. While I agree overall with your statements that we shouldn't infringe on free speech in this country, it's only "protected" in this country in the sense that for the most part you cant get arrested or have legal action taken against you for stuff like this. Libel and slander are still forms of speech and you can be prosecuted for both. But more to the point, the consequences of running your mouth don't ever go away.

Ever.

There are people out there now, in this country and all over the world, who will f*ck you right up if you offend them enough. These people will always exist, and the so will the consequences to our actions in the exercising of our "free" speech. So guys like the ones who made the movie are sure allowed to distribute their hate-speech on celluloid, even if it is protected in the U.S,. and we respect their right (however despicable and tasteless) to do so.

But let's not be so arrogant as to think that the people we offend won't ever tell us what they think of what we've said with a brick to the face, or a few hundred riots worldwide. Take that for what you will when you think about free speech and how "protected" it is.
2012-09-26 03:38:07 PM  
1 votes:

vudukungfu: keylock71: [upload.wikimedia.org image 220x322]

On Palm Sunday last year, 1,000 protesters marched outside a French gallery showing "Piss Christ," and the piece was attacked by hammer-toting vandals while gallery workers received death threats. The piece - there are 10 prints - has also been vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria in Australia and in Sweden. Link

Yeah, well piss on him and his nutjob followers.
they worship a guy who was nailed to a cross and attack his image with hammers?
Farking loonies.

They need wither medicated or locked up.


I agree. Same goes for Muslims who get outraged over speech or expression they disagree with.

I think Obama summed it up nicely at the UN yesterday, actually.
2012-09-26 03:27:59 PM  
1 votes:
I completely disagree with your opinion Slate writer but I am happy you are free to express it even though it is wrong and super dumb.
2012-09-26 03:27:15 PM  
1 votes:
If hate speech is outlawed, only outlaws will use hate speech.

I'm being facetious there, but what I believe we've learned from European countries, where free speech protections are less absolute, is that if you ban hate speech it won't do a damn thing to eliminate hate groups from spreading, and if anything it will just make them seem more exciting, taboo and, yes, outlaw-ish, with a veneer of victimhood to boot.
2012-09-26 03:19:45 PM  
1 votes:
It's really tough to criticize. On the one hand, the protesting Muslims are incredibly farking stupid for thinking one dumbass who posted a YouTube video represents all of the US and western culture. On the other hand, the US did invade two countries and many in our population protested all Muslims because of one Muslim dumbass named Osama.

I'm surrounded by assholes dumbasses.
2012-09-26 02:28:20 PM  
1 votes:
The real estate analogy isn't good since renters have signed a lease making it more difficult to toss people out. However, when you sign up to post on a website you agree to their terms and if they find something you post to be offensive they can toss you.  You agreed to it already.
2012-09-26 01:40:10 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: But they didn't build that soapbox without the help of the taxpayers, right?


There are a million soapboxes out there, many of which wouldn't mind the video being posted.
2012-09-26 01:21:28 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: so i'm a telcom corporation and I decide that hey - f*ck those Occupy people. I think they're asshats. so I have my techs work some mojo to make it difficult for Occupy people to use my section of the intertubes and make it damn near impossible for them to talk to one another. oh, and I find a way to charge them extra to boot, because f*ck you, i'm evil. is that ok too? hey, congress isn't involved so it's totally cool, right?


Have you googled "santorum" lately? If you haven't dont. And that was just them being cute. Now if they wanted to they could do a lot more. And for the record I dont care!! They are a private company. If they want to pick sides they can. Same with them giving information to China. If you dont want to get a knock on your bedroom door in the middle of the night and get black bagged then don't type "china freedom" into the search bar on google.
2012-09-26 01:14:38 PM  
1 votes:

Pocket Ninja: Bronze Age, huh.


I think that is the shortest thing you have ever posted here. It's the "Jesus wept" of all great Pocket Ninja comments.
2012-09-26 01:04:08 PM  
1 votes:

Weaver95: unlikely: The first amendment says that Congress shall make no law...

I don't think YouTube deciding to delete a video or The Slate asking them to take it down has anything to do with congress making a law.

so if a corporation suppresses our speech, it's totally cool?


youtube is google's front yard.
They're not required to let you post signs there.
2012-09-26 12:54:21 PM  
1 votes:
Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School

Someone needs to review his credentials.
2012-09-26 12:28:43 PM  
1 votes:
Fine with me, as long as you apply it equally to all strident, unbending Bronze Age [sic] religious ideologies that can't handle the occasional punch on the nose.

i47.tinypic.com
2012-09-26 12:23:21 PM  
1 votes:
img685.imageshack.us

I dont remember riots in the streets over this. Did the Koran change in the last 11 years? Is there a NABRE version of the Koran no one told me about? A major American tv program turns Mohammad into a equal of Jesus, Joseph Smith, and Buddha and no one died. A Youtube clip about Mohammad causes blood in the streets.

Or was it just some crazy idiots looking for a reason? Nope, can be that. It would take too much courage for a world leader to point out this inconstancy.
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-26 12:18:30 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: Diogenes: I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.

the actual issue of free speech isn't a liberal/conservative issue but, oddly enough, the people I see defending social conservative religious nuts rioting because of a cartoon or movie have been the liberal type. I think it is in the name of tolerance of other cultures...


That's odd; I haven't seen anyone defending rioters at all. I doubt you have either, but you seem to have a different relationship with reality than I do.
2012-09-26 12:17:05 PM  
1 votes:
...But enough about Christianity...
2012-09-26 12:12:44 PM  
1 votes:

Diogenes: I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.


the actual issue of free speech isn't a liberal/conservative issue but, oddly enough, the people I see defending social conservative religious nuts rioting because of a cartoon or movie have been the liberal type. I think it is in the name of tolerance of other cultures...
2012-09-26 12:10:19 PM  
1 votes:

Aarontology: [mohammedbombhead.jpg]


farm3.static.flickr.com

obligatory  Slate is wrong if they suggest what headline claims...
2012-09-26 12:02:04 PM  
1 votes:
If every day someone in the world posted something different but equally rude towards a particular religion, you would never have a reason to suddenly become overwhelmingly outraged.

In India, they had massive riots at a cinema because the couple kissed at the end. If every movie had a kiss, you would never have a riot because of a kiss.

I think industrialized countries should double-down and have something equally outrageous released every day. Last thing you want to do is let the next moment of outrage build-up and explode.
2012-09-26 12:00:36 PM  
1 votes:

ignatius_crumbcake: This is the liberal equivalent of conservative derp.


I don't see this as liberal/conservative issue, in the sense of American sociopolitics.

As for the article: Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
2012-09-26 11:59:53 AM  
1 votes:
Portrayals of Mohammed can make regular, friendly, peaceful westernized Muslims offended and uncomfortable as well, depending on their particular faith tradition. So regardless of the idiotic overreactions of Muslim fundies elsewhere in the world, you have to right to portray Mohammed but you're a jerk if you do.
2012-09-26 11:49:21 AM  
1 votes:
We should tell then, using our unalienable right, that they need to STFU and GBTW, they have some catching up to do, climbing out fo the stone age and being accepted as human beings.
Treating women the way they do.
They ought to be ashamed.
Invisible sky wizard notwithstanding, they need to grow up, grow some skin, and figure out how te be acceptable members of society.
Frikkin' morans.
 
Displayed 69 of 69 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report