Topic: Freedom of speech

[Alan_X]

I don't get what you mean ?

Those that set out to offend aren't worth listening to anyway, and like most on here wouldn't give such a person the time of day.

However, if you genuinely believe what you say, and are in full possession of the facts that are needed to make a controlled decision then it's your right to do so within the boundaries of the law.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to set out to offend. And it's not always about making a controlled decision once you are in full possession of the facts.

[L666KOP]

I think it's perfectly acceptable to set out to offend. And it's not always about making a controlled decision once you are in full possession of the facts.

Really ?

That's where we differ then.

I wouldn't intentionally set out to offend anyone that wasn't offending me. Things I say may upset/annoy/offend some people, but it's never my aim unless they've done the same to me.

There are plenty of ways to spark reasonable debate, and poke and prod at peoples moral/political/religious beliefs without doing so by knowingly offending them.

[Corkboy]

Really ?

That's where we differ then.

As I said earlier, I'm an atheist and large amounts of both Christians and Muslims think I'm a piece of shit. Why wouldn't I set out to offend them?

[L666KOP]

As I said earlier, I'm an atheist and large amounts of both Christians and Muslims think I'm a piece of shit. Why wouldn't I set out to offend them?

If they said it to you directly then it's fair enough.

But would you initiate a mudslinging match by offending someone in some way, just because they think you're a piece of shit ?

[Corkboy]

If they said it to you directly then it's fair enough.

They usually don't. Equally, Charlie Hebdo didn't say anything "directly" to any Muslims.

[L666KOP]

They usually don't. Equally, Charlie Hebdo didn't say anything "directly" to any Muslims.

There's a difference mate, come on.

Charlie Hebdo is aimed at the public domain. A muslim that just thinks you're a piece of shit without actually saying anything to you is different.

What they are doing has obviously upset a few people, some will have brushed it off, some will have got upset about it and done nothing, those that acted did so because they wanted to silence Charlie Hebdo.

Like I said earlier, we all have our own tolerances, and I don't think it's fair to tell anyone what they should/shouldn't be offended at.

I wouldn't dream of telling you what you should get annoyed at ?

[Anywhichwayicant]

Is is true that Charlie Hebdo sacked Sine in 2009, for failing to apologise for a Jewish cartoon he drew?

[Yorkykopite]

This link will offend Saudi Arabian princes and mullahs (hope that's ok).

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/postponement-raif-badawi-flogging-medical-grounds-exposes-shocking-brutalit

Raif's second round of flogging has been postponed because the wounds inflicted by the first round haven't properly healed yet.

Just a reminder that the man is being flogged 1000 times because he said something that the authorities didn't like.

Fucking savages. 

[L666KOP]

This link will offend Saudi Arabian princes and mullahs (hope that's ok).

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/postponement-raif-badawi-flogging-medical-grounds-exposes-shocking-brutalit

Raif's second round of flogging has been postponed because the wounds inflicted by the first round haven't properly healed yet.

Just a reminder that the man is being flogged 1000 times because he said something that the authorities didn't like.

Fucking savages.

Is what he said available to read anywhere ?

[Yorkykopite]

Is what he said available to read anywhere ?

I posted it earlier. Not sure which thread.

Prepare to be outraged.

[Card Cheat]

Fucking savages.

Now now. Allah knows best.

[Corkboy]

There's a difference mate, come on.

Charlie Hebdo is aimed at the public domain. A muslim that just thinks you're a piece of shit without actually saying anything to you is different

No it isn't. Charlie Hebdo wasn't insulting any specific Muslim, in much the same way that when more than half the planet says you need god to be moral, they aren't insulting any specific atheist.

[L666KOP]

I posted it earlier. Not sure which thread.

Prepare to be outraged.

Found it mate.

Fuck me.

[jooneyisdagod]

This link will offend Saudi Arabian princes and mullahs (hope that's ok).

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/postponement-raif-badawi-flogging-medical-grounds-exposes-shocking-brutalit

Raif's second round of flogging has been postponed because the wounds inflicted by the first round haven't properly healed yet.

Just a reminder that the man is being flogged 1000 times because he said something that the authorities didn't like.

Fucking savages. 

But it's okay. To compensate for the lack of lashings and placate the baying masses they beheaded a woman.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html

[saoirse08]

This link will offend Saudi Arabian princes and mullahs (hope that's ok).

http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/postponement-raif-badawi-flogging-medical-grounds-exposes-shocking-brutalit

Raif's second round of flogging has been postponed because the wounds inflicted by the first round haven't properly healed yet.

Just a reminder that the man is being flogged 1000 times because he said something that the authorities didn't like.

Fucking savages. 

Saudi oil money has has such a corrupting influence on global islam and on many governments and businesses. It's blood money. And Wahhabism is poison.

It's a disgusting country and a disgusting regime. Can only feel pity for Raif Badawi and total disgust for that fucking kingdom.

[Yorkykopite]

Found it mate.

Fuck me.

Indeed.

But the point is that someone - someone very powerful - found it offensive. We have to assume they were sincere when they say they were offended too.

Hence the need to protect offensive free speech.

[KiNki]

Really ?

That's where we differ then.

I wouldn't intentionally set out to offend anyone that wasn't offending me. Things I say may upset/annoy/offend some people, but it's never my aim unless they've done the same to me.

There are plenty of ways to spark reasonable debate, and poke and prod at peoples moral/political/religious beliefs without doing so by knowingly offending them.

It might be something you wouldnt do but what is the purpose of the media? They are there to hold political, church, state to account, to ask the questions on behalf of joe public. 

The media isn't though...and one branch of 'church' seems to be untouchable when it comes to questions, satire.

Charlie hebdo seem to have got involved following the reaction to the Danish cartoons.  They were satirising a lack of comment and discussion from the media and political forces.  They satarize political points of view.

What hebdo do is really no different to private eye and mags of that ilk.  No different from have I got news for you...the daily show, Colbert report, spitting image and so on and so forth.

The world is a better place for satirists holding the cowardly, inept, corrupt, media to account.

[L666KOP]

No it isn't. Charlie Hebdo wasn't insulting any specific Muslim, in much the same way that when more than half the planet says you need god to be moral, they aren't insulting any specific atheist.

Correct.

And if they all thought about the offending cartoon, rather than publishing it then it's just like me thinking you're a twat.

What you're saying is that we should be able to act on what people are thinking ?

Would it be okay for me to have a pop at someone for no reason other than that I know he thinks I'm a piece of shit ?

[The North Bank]

Is is true that Charlie Hebdo sacked Sine in 2009, for failing to apologise for a Jewish cartoon he drew?

I think they had to sack him or they would've got sued. What he did was seen as illegal. Without being an expert,French laws seem to protect Jewish sensitivities more than Muslim ones. But like the mayor of Rotterdam said, if you don't like it you're welcome to leave and find a place that respects your sensitivities. All these things do make free speech ambiguous though as it is a person who decides what is legal and what isn't.

[BoRed]

I think they had to sack him or they would've got sued. What he did was seen as illegal.

Not quite. He was charged, but not convicted. The magazine later had to pay him compensation for unfair dismissal.

[The North Bank]

Saudi oil money has has such a corrupting influence on global islam and on many governments and businesses. It's blood money. And Wahhabism is poison.

It's a disgusting country and a disgusting regime. Can only feel pity for Raif Badawi and total disgust for that fucking kingdom.

You never hear the Saudis get criticised though...They seem to escape any blame...I wonder why.

[The North Bank]

Not quite. He was charged, but not convicted. The magazine later had to pay him compensation for unfair dismissal.

That's the democratic process. No one said the magazine was perfect, certainly not me. But I am not sure how his case has anything to do with later events. I am sure that at no stage did the magazine claim that you should be allowed to say what you want,when you want, and offend who you want. This concept seems to have been born here in this thread. I very much doubt if its in the magazines manifesto. They probably would not get a license to operate if they followed that principle.

[L666KOP]

It might be something you wouldnt do but what is the purpose of the media? They are there to hold political, church, state to account, to ask the questions on behalf of joe public. 

The media isn't though...and one branch of 'church' seems to be untouchable when it comes to questions, satire.

Charlie hebdo seem to have got involved following the reaction to the Danish cartoons.  They were satirising a lack of comment and discussion from the media and political forces.  They satarize political points of view.

What hebdo do is really no different to private eye and mags of that ilk.  No different from have I got news for you...the daily show, Colbert report, spitting image and so on and so forth.

The world is a better place for satirists holding the cowardly, inept, corrupt, media to account.

Yeah, I get it.

It again comes around to our own personal definition/interpretation of 'offensive'.

We definitely need a reliable voice that is prepared to poke and prod at what many see as taboo subjects. It's just a pity that the subjects we want to discuss are those that seem to be offended so easily, and react without impunity.

[Yorkykopite]

You never hear the Saudis get criticised though...They seem to escape any blame...I wonder why.

Because you keep filling your car up with their petrol.

[saoirse08]

You never hear the Saudis get criticised though...They seem to escape any blame...I wonder why.

Saudis are quite handy with threats...

"Saudi Arabia's rulers threatened to make it easier for terrorists to attack London unless corruption investigations into their arms deals were halted, according to court documents revealed yesterday.

Previously secret files describe how investigators were told they faced "another 7/7" and the loss of "British lives on British streets" if they pressed on with their inquiries and the Saudis carried out their threat to cut off intelligence.

Prince Bandar, the head of the Saudi national security council, and son of the crown prince, was alleged in court to be the man behind the threats to hold back information about suicide bombers and terrorists. He faces accusations that he himself took more than £1bn in secret payments from the arms company BAE.

He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade

The whole Al-Yamamah arms deal has had a corrupting effect on several British govt.

[The North Bank]

Because you keep filling your car up with their petrol.

I'm actually driving one of those weird hybrids right now, it hardly uses any petrol... Cant wait till I get my car back...My need for speed is greater than my need for free speech...sorry  ...

[L666KOP]

Saudis are quite handy with threats...


He was accused in yesterday's high court hearings of flying to London in December 2006 and uttering threats which made the prime minister, Tony Blair, force an end to the Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery allegations involving Bandar and his family.

The threats halted the fraud inquiry, but triggered an international outcry, with allegations that Britain had broken international anti-bribery treaties."

That's astonishing.

[AA1122]

Am I right in thinking that pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) are banned as it is thought to encourage idolatry? Or, is there more to it than this simple statement?

Why I ask this, is if so, surely satirical pictures of him are not going to be idolised. However, the whole furore about it is going to make the prophet more of an idol as people lumber to 'defend' and 'avenge' their prophet. Thus elevating his position above the role of a human prophet.

Islamic art seems to focus on geometric designs and calligraphy. However, there are Persian and Ottoman miniatures which do depict the human form. Does this cultural element come into why some Muslims are so vehemently against images of the prophet? As in it is a break away from Persian or Turk influences to shy away from depicting the human form (within this I include the prophet)?

I understand why the images can be offensive to a certain extent. However, context and understanding the cartoon's statement is the most important thing for me. 

I see many Muslims are offended by the image? Why are they so offended? Do they understand why they are so offended? Surely faith is more important.

I am not trying to bait people here. I am wondering if anyone can help to explain for the benefit of all readers.

**edit**

To explain what I am trying to say here - and I could be completely misunderstanding - is it seems that some Muslims are offended by a (what appears to me to be a) human rule instructing that the prophet cannot be depicted, which was decided to stop idolatry.

Whereas, by complaining about the breaking of this human (as opposed to divine/religious?) rule, the prophet's status becomes elevated. Thus making the rule ineffective in this instance.

Do I have a point here?

[saoirse08]

That's astonishing.

Al-Yamamah is Arabic for The Dove.  Now that's satire!

The whole sorry history is here or look through The Guardian, as I remember the only newspaper that covered the events in any depth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Yamamah_arms_deal

[The North Bank]

Am I right in thinking that pictures of Muhammad (pbuh) are banned as it is thought to encourage idolatry? Or, is there more to it than this simple statement?

Why I ask this, is if so, surely satirical pictures of him are not going to be idolised. However, the whole furore about it is going to make the prophet more of an idol as people lumber to 'defend' and 'avenge' their prophet. Thus elevating his position above te role of a human prophet.

Islamic art seems to focus on geometric designs and calligraphy. However, there are Persian and Ottoman miniatures which do depict the human form. Does this cultural element come into why some Muslims are so vehemently against images of the prophet? As in it is a break away from Persian or Turk influences to shy away from depicting the human form (within this I include the prophet)?

I understand why the images can be offensive to a certain extent. However, context and understanding the cartoon's statement is the most important thing for me. 

I see many Muslims are offended by the image? Why are they so offended? Do they understand why they are so offended? Surely faith is more important.

I am not trying to bait people here. I am wondering if anyone can help to explain for the benefit of all readers.

I suppose the caricatures do ridicule him as well. Not the last one, which is actually very clever. But earlier ones had him naked or looking mockingly deformed. I wonder what the reaction would have been if someone drew a portrait of say a man sitting proudly on a horse and claimed that was Mohammad. I actually doubt that would have caused as much offense. As there is no element of ridicule in it. But I could be totally wrong on that one.

[The North Bank]

That's astonishing.

Its shameful if true.

[AA1122]

I wonder what the reaction would have been if someone drew a portrait of say a man sitting proudly on a horse and claimed that was Mohammad. I actually doubt that would have caused as much offense. As there is no element of ridicule in it. But I could be totally wrong on that one.

I am out of my depth here, but, that's my point. If the prophet were depicted as noble, it might not cause as much offence, but, it would be banned as it is seen to be encouraging idolatry? Which is worse in the long run for the religion.

Whereas, the cartoon is not trying to inspire idolatry or elevate the status of the prophet, hence it comes across to me (an uneducated atheist) as ironic that there is such an outrage?

[AA1122]

(so as not to edit my last post again)

It comes across to me as: 'I'm so offended you depicted the prophet'.

Without actually understanding the rulings as to why depictions of the prophet are not allowed.

Please excuse my simplicity and ignorance, I could be way off the mark. But you can understand why I can see several layers of irony.

And that doesn't justify people thinking the cartoon is great, because: 'Hey we got away with drawing Muhammad (pbuh)'.

[Trada]

One thing the Lib dems are right about.

David Cameron is "technologically illiterate" on encryption ban

The Prime Minister's plans to ban encryption technology are "technologically illiterate", Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert has said today (Friday 16 January).

Strong encryption technology is used by a number of major websites but under Cameron's plans websites would be required to store data and hand that over to the intelligence agencies.

Responding to David Cameron's proposals to allow British intelligence agencies to have the power to break the encryption technology Julian said:

“Cameron’s plan to ban encryption technology means he is either cynically trying to sound tough on terror, or he simply doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about. I wonder if the Prime Minister realises his ludicrous proposal is technologically illiterate?

“We all know online shopping, online banking and private messaging all use encryption, so it is crazy to suggest we should ditch it. It would open ourselves to attack from anyone with 10 minutes hacking experience.

“What is even more bizarre is Cameron has chosen to make this big announcement in the same week he has hotfooted it to Washington to call for greater cyber security. He is completely contradicting himself.

“By trying to ban encryption the Tories risk serious damage to our economy, freedom, and security. It is vitally important that we tackle terrorism effectively - but robbing us all of our online security is no way to do it.”

[zero zero]

Great example of doublethink from Pope Francis.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/uk-france-shooting-pope-idUKKBN0KO16Q20150115?rpc=401

After Paris attacks, Pope speaks out against insulting religions

"I think both freedom of religion and freedom of expression are both fundamental human rights," he said, adding that he was talking specifically about the Paris killings.

Great, we're on the same page.

Francis, who has condemned the Paris attacks, was asked about the relationship between freedom of religion and freedom of expression.

This is the easy bit. Anything else would mean he stands with the religiously motivated killers. The important bit that's missing is where His Holiness goes on to say that he defends the fundamental right of the murdered cartoonists to draw whatever pictures they wish.

"You can't provoke, you can't insult the faith of others, you can't make fun of faith," he told reporters on Thursday, aboard a plane taking him from Sri Lanka to the Philippines to start the second leg off his Asian tour.

And the back tracking begins. Here Pope Francis, despite his protestations and claims, does not care about Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Expression.

Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Religion means that anyone has the right to follow their own beliefs. A Catholic is free to practice Catholicism. And everyone else is equally free not to. A Muslim tis free o refrain from eating pork because he believes that makes them a better Muslim. And I am equally free to enjoy crispy bacon for breakfast. Any follower of a particular sect can say they hold their sacred texts sacred. That is freedom of religion. But, equally I don't have to hold their sacred texts sacred. Because that is also freedom of religion.

When someone says "You can't make fun of faith" or "You can't draw this because my holy texts say so" they are trying to impose their values and beliefs upon you. If one person exercises their right to religious freedom by accepting the strictures of their faith, someone else has the equal right not to.

In the UK the monarchy, the political establishment, everybody is open to have their ideas or their actions questioned or openly lampooned. This is why, to me, blasphemy laws are unacceptable. I don't want to be a good Catholic, or a good Muslim and it's my right not to be forced to behave like one.

"You can't make a toy out of the religions of others," he added. "These people provoke and then (something can happen). In freedom of expression there are limits."

Those limits are defined by law.

[TipTopKop]

Taking the piss out of someone because of their genuinely held religious beliefs is allowed, but looked down on by most reasonable people. It is allowed because generally speaking it reflects badly upon the piss-taker himself, even if the piss-takee does have an illogical viewpoint (ie. they should be pitied really).

Taking the piss out of sadistic moronic thugs who are supposedly trying to take some moral high ground should be compulsory for all. By highlighting the mockery they are making of the religion that they are trying to hijack, maximum pressure is being applied to the normal followers of said religion to put their house in order.

That's how I see it.

In a way, the more time passes by I find myself pitying the needless waste of life, and shattered families even more. Sure, people can talk of freedom of expression, but to me, if the best you can do to express this is by some schoolboy doodles in an effort to try an offend a certain section of society, well...

...and before someone jumps out with the 'they shouldn't expect to be killed when drawing such cartoons' my response is correct; they shouldn't, but in this day and age, it happens with maniacs left and right. I've seen people step out of their cars and bang on other cars like mad apes just because someone beat them to a spot in traffic. IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT, but it happens, this is the real world sadly.

You step outside your home, and start cussing each and every person that goes by, yes, you are indeed exercising your right to freedom of speech, and though the majority will ignore you or pity you as some attention seeker, there will be the odd nutjob that will be willing to take matters on a primal level. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

[Alan_X]

In a way, the more time passes by I find myself pitying the needless waste of life, and shattered families even more. Sure, people can talk of freedom of expression, but to me, if the best you can do to express this is by some schoolboy doodles in an effort to try an offend a certain section of society, well...

I think that's a very dismissive attitude to a tradition that is hundreds of years old. What things do matter to you if holding the powerful and corrupt is not on your list?

And if they are just schoolboy doodles then why would any normal, tolerant person get upset?

[TipTopKop]

I think that's a very dismissive attitude to a tradition that is hundreds of years old. What things do matter to you if holding the powerful and corrupt is not on your list?

And if they are just schoolboy doodles then why would any normal, tolerant person get upset?

I don't mean to dismiss satire in of itself, I personally love political satire. I also thought their pisstake on Al Baghdadi, IS, and extremism is wonderful, and spot on.

I'm all for taking on the powerful and corrupt (who wouldn't be), but going after a centuries old religious figurehead (who may or may not have existed) was (to me) designed to cause maximum (widest) offence. I just felt the wider you cast your net, the less focused your message gets. Personally though? I wouldn't deny them the right to do it.

With regards to the second question, people get upset for the simplest of reasons these days, I saw a person completely lose it over a parking ticket today.

However, no rational, clear thinking, civilised individual, would/should resort to what these three nutters did.

[GreatEx]

It comes across to me as: 'I'm so offended you depicted the prophet'.
Without actually understanding the rulings as to why depictions of the prophet are not allowed.
Please excuse my simplicity and ignorance, I could be way off the mark. But you can understand why I can see several layers of irony.

No need to be apologetic. Your POV is closely aligned to the one I've expressed to friends and family. As far as I know - and I am no Islamic scholar either - the ban on human imagery is to prevent idolatry, and I too questioned how a caricature could possibly lead to such a thing. But being rational is not in the fundamentalist's modus operandi.

[GreatEx]

So nobody should be held accountable for what they say on the internet or twitter.
To be honest i dont think stupidity or lack of consideration for what you are saying is any excuse. if the person is impulsive then they should stay off the web.
People may get there facts wrong i accept that and nothing wrong with someone just admitting it when they are corrected but that's completely different from a person writing whatever they wish without any thought or consideration.

I do think you and L666KOP are debating a different topic to (most of) the rest of us. You're talking about what kind of speech is worthy of dissemination or that dignifies a response. We're talking about what kind of speech should be outlawed.

If I post something on this forum that is stupid, impulsive and serves only to wind people up, then the moderators will delete it and possibly warn me about future conduct or even ban, and that is their right as the custodians of this channel. But I would not face any legal consequences. These are two completely different considerations, and any reasonable society will be far more tolerant in the latter case.