Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" set for May 20th      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 101
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20thPage 5 of 10    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

So, I mean, yes there's freedom of speech here, we all know it and (most) want it, but we could also have the decency to refrain, IMO, from gratuitous insults or mockeries (whether in the name of simple freedom of speech -- which is not in reality being threatened here, let's be realistic --- or in the name of "art") of peoples' long-cherished religious beliefs or icons.


1)we could also have the decency to refrain, IMO, from gratuitous insults or mockeriesof peoples' long-cherished religious beliefs or icons.

We could ( and personally I don't plan any such images), but it would have to be someone's personal choice. If society was to try & designate certain things ( in this case, religious beliefs & icons) as being "off limits" for the purposes of free speech then we'd be starting down a very slippery slope. Other groups would want their sacred cows on the list (as an example, perhaps some group espousing what they consider "proper family values" would want events like gay pride day & parades banned because they find them offensive).

2) whether in the name of simple freedom of speech -- which is not in reality being threatened here, let's be realistic --- or in the name of "art

Who's to say? One person's freedom of speech is another person's inane offensive babble. Another slippery slope, we can't give some person or commitee the power to rule over what may or may not constitutes free speech. We accept certain things as being unacceptable ( the classic example being you have freedom of speech but that doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) . As was pointed out by one of the posters in the thread, the "offensive" segment was completely within FCC broadcast standards, offensive as it may be to some viewers. Whether it's art or not is completely subjective; personally I haven't watched South Park for a few years as it was becoming merely current media personalities & issues being inserted into the same-old same-old stories.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 102
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/8/2010 9:33:30 AM

Who's to say?

Actually the blog has no authority to suppress freedom of speech, the published warning was also under the same right to freedom of speech protection as the South Park episode. The blog did not "suppress", "violate" or otherwise "negate" anybody's "freedom of speech.

Whether you call the actions of the broadcaster cowardice, or prudence it makes no difference, nobody's right to free speech was negated here, period.

As the stated reason for the "Draw Mohammed Day" stunt was in support of "free speech", it was basically a misdirected, "na na na na boo boo", nothing more, nothing less.

To try to argue that it was an honest expression in support of "freedom of speech" (the stated intent), is specious.

A valid example of a terrorist organization violating the right to freedom of speech (in Canada) has been given (no, it wasn't Coulter, she just bailed out of cowardice):

JDL/Harper administration barring Galloway entrance to Canada to speak.

(However, Galloway and the Toronto University he was scheduled to speak at had the courage to go ahead with the lecture via video = a valid example of protesting an actual violation of the right to freedom of speech)

One person's freedom of speech is another person's inane offensive babble.

That doesn't change the fact that the "freedom of speech" is mandated as a constitutional right.

Here's another "real" (and even more recent) violation of the right of freedom of speech:


MAY 5--Meet Jennifer LaPenta. The Illinois woman, 19, was jailed Monday after a judge was offended by the t-shirt she wore to a friend's court hearing. LaPenta, wearing a black shirt with the message, "I Have The ****, So I Make The Rules," ran afoul of Judge Helen Rozenberg, a Circuit Court jurist who handles misdemeanor and traffic cases. A miffed Rozenberg, 56, summoned LaPenta from the gallery, and cited her for contempt of court. The judge then immediately sentenced LaPenta to 48 hours in jail, and had her removed from the courtroom in handcuffs.


If you're going to pick a freedom of speech battle, at least go after someone who is actually negating a constitutional right to freedom of speech.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 103
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/8/2010 10:21:06 AM
Anyone choosing to draw a picture to support "draw Mohammed day" is exercising their right tofreedom of speech. Sure, it may be a pointless , childish gesture but it's still their right.


I'm not arguing that they aren't exercising their right to freedom of speech, the only thing I take exception to is those who claim that this was a protest to support an infringement of that right, because it wasn't.


could certainly result freedom of speech being negated.

By an act of cowardice/prudence ...it depends on perspective what you consider the motive, but not the act itself which was perpetrated by the broadcaster.


Guess the broadcaster should have just aired it & let the chips fall where they may, that'd show them.

I would have watched it and laughed if it was funny, ...it's not one of my "sacred cows", after all.


Of course, as hs beenmentioned, the ones making the decision would in all likelihood not be the ones confronted with the violent consequences.


Claim this if you want, ....and call it prudence, if you do you are then validating the "warning". Think about it. It's the same reasoning, how is " will probably end up " different from, "would in all likelihood"?
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 104
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/8/2010 11:24:26 AM

It was a threat, even if they tack on "this isn't a threat".

I would actually consider this if it was a sent message, but it was a comment on a blog. I'm not one of those people who follows the "it's on the internet, it must be true" avenue of reasoning.

Nor do I call it "prudence", in my eyes it's still cowardice.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 105
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/9/2010 6:54:45 PM
Well now, you are contradicting your own argument... This comment...

If society was to try & designate certain things ( in this case, religious beliefs & icons) as being "off limits" for the purposes of free speech then we'd be starting down a very slippery slope.

and this...

One person's freedom of speech is another person's inane offensive babble. Another slippery slope, we can't give some person or commitee the power to rule over what may or may not constitutes free speech.

Are directly contradicted by this...

We accept certain things as being unacceptable ( the classic example being you have freedom of speech but that doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) .

So either ther IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others or there isn't... It can't be both ways...

Either way, this has no bearing on "Draw Mohammed Day" because, as pointed out previously by myself and others, no-one who complained (especially about the South Park episode) actually had any power to deny, suppress or infringe another's free speech other than the broadcaster who refused to air it...

Once again... we're back to the point that, if you want to "strike a blow for free speech", the person to go after is the broadcaster... Encourage them to "stand up"... Because offending Muslims who have done nothing to you will not accomplish the goal...
 Rythmn
Joined: 1/21/2006
Msg: 106
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/9/2010 7:53:00 PM
In the name of Christianity, many indigenous people were slaughtered in the early settling of America. So, does that mean we need to poke fun at Jesus, because of a segment of murderous zealots? Or at other Christians who did not do the slaughtering? Seeing as how I'm Jewish, am I supposed to hate all Germans? What about the ones who gave their lives to save others during the occupation? Do I hate all Russians because my grandfather was imprisoned in a Siberian camp? Funny, he taught to "turn the other cheek".

What you are proposing does not sound very "Christian" to me. I take offense at ANY religious leader or "G-d" being made fun of or caricatured. Just like there are kind Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., who are respectful of others and other beliefs-- there are also kind and respectful Moslems. Have you looked into the Koran? Mary, mother of Jesus and a Jewess, is pretty much worshiped in that book! So, you want to spit on their G-d? Their Koran? Want to also spit on Mary?

I hosted several Iraqi students here a while ago, some Christian and some Moslem. They were best of friends. They banded against the enemies and the radicals and the terrorists. They did not make fun of each other's religion. Maybe Americans can learn something from these kids. Half of them watched friends and family get blown to pieces in Bagdad,after we came to help them and dissolved their police force. This is why/how terrrorist groups got into their country. If we disbanded our police, we too would have terrorist "gangs" come into our country. Poor strategy on our part. But still, they clung to hope. So, you want to dash that as well?

Yes, their leader was crazy before we went. But our own stupidity about their culture, made it even worse. We should never have left them unprotected as we did. Furthermore, if we addressed poverty and hunger "worldwide" and including "our own", terrorists wouldn't have so many converts and that would eliminate the terrorism's access to young and impressionable soldiers-- as opposed to setting more fires of hate and ridicule.

So, how about, focusing on understanding/respecting one another and like my visiting students, let's not let the terrorists make this about "religion". Most religious battles are about ego and about money and power. Most solutions and major shifts in this world come from people like Jesus and like Gandhi and like Martin Luther King.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 107
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/9/2010 8:03:11 PM
Did anyone even notice that there was a 24 hour period of responses on this threat that were disappeared mysteriously?

The irony was not lost given the nature of the threat of the thread. When Jesus was immersed in Urine as an art statement, or Mary was covered in elephant dung as a piece of art in the US there was a mighty outrage that shut down shows. When people protest government sanctified days of Christian Prayer, they are shouted down and negated in the US. When professors present a different version of history, contrary to the Christian version, or point out the genocide that formed this nation, they are almost burnt at the stake like so many before them. When women protested misogyny, miners protested, the first nations were decimated, and slavery was challenged after hundreds of years, people sat on a bus or a lunch counter, it was all free speech, but denied. When people decided that "", "Spic", "Pollack", "Jap", "Injun", and a thousand other labels had outlived any semblance of productivity or community building, they were retired. I find it hard to understand why people who feel the need or right to insult others feel that it is their god given right to continue barbaric behavior under the banner of "free speech". It is particularly hard to grok when so many of these folks pretend to have a religious justification to be utter azzholes.

Imagine again, the outrage that would ensure if an artist decided to display the concept of Adam and Eve as child molesters, or motherf*ckers. They had to have sex with someones kids afterall for the tale to play out, much like the Noah inbreeding would have occured. Or how about something really nasty like Joseph or God having butt sex with Mary to keep her officially a virgin, or the Pope blowing a 12 year old to still be officially celibate according to the rules. How would that fly as politically "correct", acceptable, and without extremist outrage? Just curious.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 108
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/9/2010 8:44:23 PM

If society was to try & designate certain things ( in this case, religious beliefs & icons) as being "off limits" for the purposes of free speech then we'd be starting down a very slippery slope.

and this...


One person's freedom of speech is another person's inane offensive babble. Another slippery slope, we can't give some person or commitee the power to rule over what may or may not constitutes free speech.

Are directly contradicted by this...


We accept certain things as being unacceptable ( the classic example being you have freedom of speech but that doesn't give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) .

So either ther IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others or there isn't... It can't be both ways...


Congrats, your post was even more asinine than your constant "na-na'boo-boo" comment.


So, tell us... are you an advocate for free speech?

If you are ( and you don't see why someone can't shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater) then you won't mind if a nurse in the operating room screamed as loudly as she can into the surgeon's ear while you are undergoing delicate surgery.

As has been posted several times on the thread there are limits to free speech; generally racist speech itself IS allowed, but hate speech ( such as encouraging people to attack others based on their race) isn't.

And at times it IS permissible to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Such as when there is a fire.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 3:20:44 AM
RE Msg: 136 by Earthpuppy:
Did anyone even notice that there was a 24 hour period of responses on this threat that were disappeared mysteriously?
That might be because of my post.

I pointed out that if it's OK to have a day when everyone should draw Mohammed, and they can draw anything they want about him, then the bill of rights, which demands equal treatment of everyone, no matter their race, creed, colour, gender, or religion, would demand that we have similar days for George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and people could draw anything they wanted about them, including them being mass-murderers and paedophiles. That certainly got up people's noses. So it might have caused posts being removed.

However, I don't think it's egalitarian to talk nasty about one dead guy, and say only nice things about 2 other dead guys. Equality means you treat Mohammed and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington the same.

But I don't live in Canada or America. So I cannot say if Americans or Canadians treat others equally. I can only judge by their actions. So it is up to Americans and Canadians to show if they are for equality or not by their actions.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 4:14:17 AM
MondoVman..." Ugh. Even the least sane, the most paranoid, and the least adjusted POFers are permitted to post their on-topic remarks related to drawing some guy named Mohammed.
Regardless, I don't get anyone's obsession with butt f*cking on a thread about drawing some guy named Mohammed though. I don't get these type individual's homophobic (or homophallic, can't decide) obsession with homosexual oral sex on a thread about drawing some guy named Mohammed. I don't get what line of reasoning would self-convince these type individuals to conclude that butt f*cking and homosexual oral sex are in any way related to drawing some guy named Mohammed.
Will someone, but please not Mommy "Na-Na-Boo-Boo I Wanna You To Lick My *SS" little joe, enlighten me please. "
_______
I was again trying to make the point that there are certain blasphemes that one can cross that will drive Christians to fanatical extremes as well. For all the homophobia and sanctity of celibacy of various sects of that faith, if that were hypocrisy were laid to an editorial cartoon, or if you walked in and stood in front of the congregation pissing in the Baptismal or on Mother Mary, you would probably see similar outrage as some Muslims feel when Mohammed is blasphemed.

That attempt to make a point was a bit inspired by the latest hypocrite of the religious right being busted in the act.
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/09/far-right-leader-busted-with-gay-escort-got-taxpayer-money-from-gop-gov-candidate-to-bash-gays/

The main points remain, that drawing pictures of Mohammed is considered blasphemy by some sects of Islam, that doing so just to piss people off is immature and counter-productive to world peace, and that it is less an issue of free speech and more of one of basic respect. People self censor all the time to keep their butts from getting kicked, or to keep peace in the family or community. There is a difference between common sense and a state sponsored censorship. People act like being respectful on this issue is akin to book burning or something. Try to put it into context of censorship throughout history.
http://www.beaconforfreedom.org/about_project/history.html
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 111
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 9:35:37 AM

The main points remain, that drawing pictures of Mohammed is considered blasphemy by some sects of Islam, that doing so just to piss people off is immature and counter-productive to world peace, and that it is less an issue of free speech and more of one of basic respect. People self censor all the time to keep their butts from getting kicked, or to keep peace in the family or community. There is a difference between common sense and a state sponsored censorship. People act like being respectful on this issue is akin to book burning or something.


^^^That about sums it up 100%. I mean, sure, you could go out with a t shirt on that says, "I Hate (insert racial slur of choice)". But you don't. Why not?? It's a matter of free speech. Yes you are technically free to say this (in this country). South Park would likely take jabs at peoples' racial or ethnic sensitivities. Why shouldn't we all be able to? Basic respect, common decency, desire to avoid risk of personal injury (and if a group of the people you're slandering with your shirt forcibly take it off you and shove it somewhere, aren't they violating your first amendment rights??), and also keeping the general peace of the community.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 112
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 10:49:57 AM

South Park would likely take jabs at peoples' racial or ethnic sensitivities. Why shouldn't we all be able to?


When I used to watch the show, a few years ago, they would do that, but they were equal opportunity offenders, and would take jabs at all races & ethnicities.

It was interesting when the controversy over the Chef character ( played by Isaac Hayes) erupted. According to the media buzz, as a Scientologist he was offended by the way the show treated religion.

Here's the link & the appropriate portions of the web page:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/14/18077561.php


Isaac "Chef" Hayes leaves South Park Over Scientology Jokes
Tuesday Mar 14th, 2006 4:38 PM
Singer Isaac Hayes is to stop providing the voice for a character in cartoon South Park because he objects to its "inappropriate ridicule" of religion.

But co-creator Matt Stone said Hayes had "never had a problem" until the Scientology Church, to which Hayes belongs, was parodied.

The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said.
'Religious sensitivity'

Stone said: "In 10 years and over 150 episodes of South Park, Isaac never had a problem with the show making fun of Christians, Muslim, Mormons or Jews.

"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was his religion featured on the show."




and if a group of the people you're slandering with your shirt forcibly take it off you and shove it somewhere, aren't they violating your first amendment rights??


Maybe they could call it demonstrating their right to free speech with a little performance art?
 xxxDINOxxx
Joined: 8/12/2009
Msg: 113
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 1:00:56 PM

co-creator Matt Stone said Hayes had "never had a problem" until the Scientology Church, to which Hayes belongs, was parodied.

The show was insensitive to "personal spiritual beliefs", said Hayes.

"There is a place in this world for satire but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry toward religious beliefs begins," he said.
'Religious sensitivity'


Personally though, I can sympathize with and agree with Hayes. I mean I can't blame him for not wanting to continue to be a part of a group who are making fun of or otherwise belittling his religious or personal beliefs.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 114
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 1:41:49 PM
Congrats, your post was even more asinine than your constant "na-na'boo-boo" comment.

Be that as it may... You've still contradicted your own position... First you stated that no-one should be deciding what is or isn't free speech... Then you acknowledged that free speech was limitable based on the reaction it produced...

You provide another example of that in your reply...

And you STILL have not addressed exactly how it is that CHOOSING to "give in" to the demands of others constitutes an infringement of free speech by those demanding... The individual STILL has the CHOICE to "give in" or "stand up"... The individual STILL has the CHOICE to publish/broadcast...

Or how a juvenile, tit-for-tat that offends the majority who don't demand or threaten will effectively address the issue of that minority who does demand and threaten... Or addresses the presumed "infringement"...

How does going out of the way to offend by, essentially, shouting "na na boo boo, look what I did. I hope you're offended, whatcha gonna do, huh, huh..?" through this "Draw Mohammed Day" actually and effectively address the problem...?

"Inquiring minds want to know"...
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 115
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 3:54:16 PM
First, I don't see the need to inflame in a deliberate manner. There's a distinction between not knowing what might offend an ethnic or religious group and making a blundering faux pas and quite another to go out of your way to do something to get a negative reaction akin to waving a red cape in a bull's face while sticking it with knives. Freedom of speech doesn't allow you to yell bomb on an airplane and all this tit for tat crap amounts to just about the same thing. Having said all that, to me it would make more sense to boycott Southpark's producers by not watching the show because they're being idiots just for the sake of being idiots and they're all about ratings. Anyone who would join in on a Draw Mohammed Day is just as much of an idiot. You may call it free speech. I call it supidity. Next time you have a fire, try putting it out with a blow torch.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 116
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 4:21:33 PM

Personally though, I can sympathize with and agree with Hayes. I mean I can't blame him for not wanting to continue to be a part of a group who are making fun of or otherwise belittling his religious or personal beliefs.


I agree with someone having that point of view, it's the fact he didn't discover religous sensitivity until they chose to parody Scientology. As stated, he had no problem with the show satirizing & parodying Chritianity, Mormons, Jews etc. But soon as they were going to portray HIS belief ( Scientology) well, that's when it became a bad thing.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 117
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 4:37:07 PM

And you STILL have not addressed exactly how it is that CHOOSING to "give in" to the demands of others constitutes an infringement of free speech by those demanding... The individual STILL has the CHOICE to "give in" or "stand up"... The individual STILL has the CHOICE to publish/broadcast...


Yes, and as I stated people CHOOSING to draw Mohammed ( not my suggestion, just started the thread for disussion) are exercising their free speech ( which, as you stated, you view as childish & just thumbing their noses) inane or pointless as it may be.


How does going out of the way to offend by, essentially, shouting "na na boo boo, look what I did. I hope you're offended, whatcha gonna do, huh, huh..?" through this "Draw Mohammed Day" ...?


I wasn't aware of any asterisk & footnote beside the phrase "free speech" saying that free speech has to address any problem ( effectively or not) whatsoever.

Perhaps you could provide a web link to a suitable website that details this footnote; and the appropriate breakdown explaining that free speech MUST actually and effectively address a problem.

And we didn't getyour answer yet regarding whether you are a proponent of free speech & do (or don't) have a problem with a nurse shouting in the surgeon's ear as the surgeon performs delicate surgery on you. It's as valid an example as your saying "not allowing someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" means "ther IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others or there isn't... It can't be both ways..."

Earthpuppy sorry, looks like he couldn't get thru the day without posting "na na boo boo, look what I did. I hope you're offended, whatcha gonna do, huh, huh..?"
 sammylg
Joined: 12/20/2006
Msg: 118
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 5:52:22 PM
"Cultural differences, cultural "filters" (as another poster here often puts it). People have to respect , for instance, American cultural filters regarding things like citizens with firearms; that's a sort of sacred cow in many demographics in this country which it simply is not in many or most other countries. That's just an example of a cultural filter.

Now, with the Muslims (as opposed to Christians, Jews, etc) , some of theirs (in general) are things such as, they tend to be more religious in general than many modern-day Christians or Jews, and along with that goes the strong taboos against things such as pork, violating the Koran or the Prophet (depicting him visually is one way of violating him, to them).

So, I mean, yes there's freedom of speech here, we all know it and (most) want it, but we could also have the decency to refrain, IMO, from gratuitous insults or mockeries (whether in the name of simple freedom of speech -- which is not in reality being threatened here, let's be realistic --- or in the name of "art") of peoples' long-cherished religious beliefs or icons. "

Are we debating decorum or right to speech without the right to be threatened? If we should get rid of stuff that is offensive to one's right to speak, I'd get rid of Rush Limabaugh and Keith Olbermann right now!

Of course if we were all decent to one another, there would be nowhere as much animosity in the world. But that has little to what is going on with the South Park.

And with Mungojoe,

I agree Facebook has a right to not allow any speech on their website, FB is not a public forum, it is a member site and privately owned on top of that. When you join the site, you go through the legalese which you sign off to and gives them the right.

And Comedy Network had a right to censor the SP spot, since they are also a private owned company and there was probably a clause that allowed SP to edit content that they saw fit with the SP creators.

But that doesn't mean that we have to be happy with that or accept it in our society. So I post my thoughts here saying those idiots who threaten people right to speak, to sarcasm, to satire, to OFFEND, are backwards and live in the dark ages.

I'm sure I'd feel the same way if I were as backwards as that group, but you cross a line when you threaten violence, whether implied by them directly or intended as a call for some fanatic to do so.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 119
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 6:31:47 PM

do (or don't) have a problem with a nurse shouting in the surgeon's ear as the surgeon performs delicate surgery on you. It's as valid an example as your saying "not allowing someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" means "ther IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others or there isn't... It can't be both ways..."

I'm not really very sure what the point here is...

First, I didn't say actually say "not allowing someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" means "not allowing someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater"... I questioned what you intended based on the contradiction in your statements...

But I will stipulate that my basic intent was to imply that relationship did exist and that the statements about being "off limits"" and "may or may not constitutes free speech" were, in reality, in error based on the fact of that contradiction...

Now, here is the part I'm not clear on... Yes, I am essentially saying this (based on your contradiction)...

your saying "not allowing someone to yell FIRE in a crowded theater" means "ther IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others or there isn't... It can't be both ways..."

But your example of...

do (or don't) have a problem with a nurse shouting in the surgeon's ear as the surgeon performs delicate surgery on you.

Is exactly the same thing as I acknowledge suggesting... There IS a basis for restricting speech based on the response it elicits from others... Just as free speech is restricted in the case of "shouting fire in a crowded theater", because of the response it elicits from others... So with your example...

Given that you've actually agreed with my point on this... What exactly was the point...?

I wasn't aware of any asterisk & footnote beside the phrase "free speech" saying that free speech has to address any problem ( effectively or not) whatsoever.

Perhaps you could provide a web link to a suitable website that details this footnote; and the appropriate breakdown explaining that free speech MUST actually and effectively address a problem.

I'm not sure what the point in giving a web link would be... I wasn't the one saying that this "Draw Mohammed Day" was standing up for free speech... That it's purpose was to show all the Muslims who are offended that we won't take it... That was you... You were the one who stated that there was a meaningful and effective purpose for it...

It's a matter of free speech & not letting a small radical group control what will & won't be shown by the media.


Actually, only some ( not all) would take offence at the proposed action. And the "some" shouldn't have control of what we can see hear & read.


I think the message I received in my mailbox from a PoF member says it well.

....

The “Everybody Draw Mohammed” day is ultimately a protest against bullying. The artist proposing it implied that if enough people participated, the bullies would be forced to threaten so many targets that their bullying would be less effective.


I think it’s a wonderful idea. Nothing derails a bully like ridicule.

The analogy is a good one


What do you suggest? Meekly acquiescing to whatever the fundamentalist ( Muslim, Christian or whoever) demand, because the current status quo "offends" them?


The schoolyard bully threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your lunch money; fearing a pummeling you hand over your lunch money. Having learned a threat can get him what he wants, the following day he threatens to beat you up unless you hand over your lunch money & your MP3 player.

The fundamentalist group threatens the South Park broadcasters because they feel the upcoming episode (which they haven't seen) is going to offend them, the broadcaster makes cuts to the episode because of the threats. Having learned a threat can get them what they want, the following day the fundamentalis group threatens >>>> fill in the blank <<<.


The draw Mohammed day isn't to show the broadcasters anything; it's meant to show those that uttered the threats that although they may have stopped the show from being shown ( or shown in it's entirety) their threats won't prevent Mohammed from being depicted ( and no one said the depictions have to be mocking or disrespectful).


And you missed the point of the "Draw Mohammed" idea, it isn't a protest against the broadcaster that backing down. It's a protest against those making the threat, and a way to say & show them that tho their threat may have prevented the airing of that episode, the threat may now generate who knows how many more images they may be offended by?

Maybe those who made the threat will realize that had they said & done nothing, the episode would have been watched by the loyal fans of South Park, perhaps chuckled over ( perhaps not), then forgotten.

It's not up to me to prove that free speech must have a valid purpose because I never claimed that it did... All I've tried to do is get you to establish that the purpose you stated would actually be achieved with this... That this was somehow "protecting free speech"... That it would actually succeed in having any of the effects you have suggested it was to have rather than make things worse...

Your the one who has stated it has a purpose, a problem that will be solved... but you haven't established that to be the case...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 120
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 8:10:43 PM

Your the one who has stated it has a purpose, a problem that will be solved... but you haven't established that to be the case...


Using the bully analogy, anyone who has had encounters with a bully knows (or quickly learns) that you can either stand up to the bully OR you can accede to his demands. And the bully always escalates his demands.

The ones making the threat in the blog ( they can call it a warning if they want, but thatdoesn't change that it is a threat) are the bully. With the broadcaster having acceded to their demand we can rest assured that they learned their lesson; they can get what they want by making threats.

Free speech doesn't have to have a purpose, when it does that's fine but if I wanted to print up & hand out leaflets saying the turnips are going to take over the Earth ( fyi I don't think that, I'm just suggesting an extremely ridiculous premise) I can, as I have free speech. That my exercising it in such a way serves no purpose doesn't matter.

And should I choose to distribute such leaflets, tho I have the free speech to do so doesn't mean the media has to cover the story or that anyone has to read the leaflets.


All I've tried to do is get you to establish that the purpose you stated would actually be achieved with this...


Perhaps it WOULD be achieved by the draw Mohammed day, who knows? The ones threatening may see it as a miscalculationon their part if scads of drawings were generated as a result of their threats. That's beside the point however, the point is that should someone choose to draw Mohammed that's their right under free speech; same as the art ( so called) of Jesus immersed in Urine as an art statement, or Mary covered in elephant dung as a piece of art in the US that was mentioned earlier.

Disgusting yes. Art ? Not in my view. But it's a product of free speech.


All I've tried to do is get you to establish that the purpose you stated would actually be achieved with this.


I'm pretty sure it would p**s off the ones that made the threat, I believe that was the purpose of the "Draw Mohammed Day". As I stated earlier, why don't you ask the Seattle cartoonist what they think the purpose of their suggestion is?
 themadfiddler
Joined: 12/9/2009
Msg: 121
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/10/2010 9:58:29 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ok4njJXI8

You-tuber Thunderf00t's take on this day...

Personally I have little use for the notion of "moderate" Islam that does not go out of its way to decry extremist Islam in the same fashion that I have no use for moderate Christianity or Judaism that does not do everything possible to separate and isolate its more barbarous and murderous kinfolk.

Practice your faith in the privacy of your own home and temple if you must.

Expect the rest of the world or civil government to "knuckle under" to your stone age superstitions at your peril, be you Christian, Jew, or Moslem or any other faith.

One need not go out of their way to deliberately antagonize a religious organization... but to imagine that they are immune to satire (which could hardly be called systematic persecution) especially considering the ridiculous level of manipulation that has occurred at the level of the UN particularly to prevent the hurt feelings of the Catholic and Islamic nations, predominantly (I'm talking about the ridiculous and backward anti-blasphemy laws that some of my more relaxed liberal friends seem to be overlooking here dangerously).

I might add the comparison between Beth Din courts and Sharia courts is not quite accurate.

While both are courts that are based on religious authority, Beth Din courts cannot rule on civil or secular law in most nations whereas Sharia courts in Islamic republics take on that role quite extensively. Religious police in Saudi Arabia have the power of life and death over the people. I don't recall any records of a Beth Din court ever handing down a death sentence in Brooklyn...on the other hand, the Sharia courts hand these down in Riyadh every Friday...bring the whole family. The comparison is a touch disingenuous.

Should a filmmaker be shot to death and nearly decapitated simply because he makes a film critical of a religion?

Similarly, do we treat this any different than those domestic terrorists who murder doctors who provide abortion services to women?

Is your personal belief a defense for heinous crime? Do we as a society have to put on kid gloves because we run the risk of offending someone's religious beliefs?

Should these religious beliefs allow you to run roughshod over civil law?

Now if you are asking will "Draw Mohammad Day" have any great lasting impact...the answer is probably not. Then again, it might be delightfully infuriating and get a lot of keffiyah's twisted overly tight. Fork 'em if they don't like it.

And if the moderate's don't like it either, well, I guess they'll just have to check out the history of their faith and remember back to a time when it wasn't forbidden to depict the prophet and they weren't hijacked by this noisy minority from Saudi Arabia that is trying to hold them and their whole faith as well as Western society hostage with threats of violence when they can't get their own way.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 122
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 5:10:41 AM
I'm pretty sure it would p**s off the ones that made the threat

Oh, I'm sure it would... It would also p*ss off a lot of the Muslims who previously did not protest or threaten... It would exascerbate the issue by creating more, not fewer protests and, likely, threats...

Perhaps it WOULD be achieved by the draw Mohammed day, who knows?

And, perhaps, pigs will fly as a matter of course... Just sayin', it COULD happen... Who knows...? Anyone who is attempting to 'hang their hat' on any specious reason they can dig up to partake in their favorite prejudice...

That's beside the point however, the point is that should someone choose to draw Mohammed that's their right under free speech; same as the art ( so called) of Jesus immersed in Urine as an art statement, or Mary covered in elephant dung as a piece of art in the US that was mentioned earlier.

And no-one stopped the broadcaster from showing the episode intact... Except the broadcaster... It was their CHOICE, ergo, no infringement or suppression of free speech

Disgusting yes. Art ? Not in my view. But it's a product of free speech.

So was the pressure to pull the offending portions...

Free speech doesn't have to have a purpose, when it does that's fine but if I wanted to print up & hand out leaflets saying the turnips are going to take over the Earth ( fyi I don't think that, I'm just suggesting an extremely ridiculous premise) I can, as I have free speech. That my exercising it in such a way serves no purpose doesn't matter.

And that's what makes this nothing more than "Na na boo Look what I did, I hope your offended. Whatcha gonna do about it, huh, huh?"... It has no purpose other than to satisfy a gratuitous desire to exercise a favorite prejudice by taking cheap shots at organized religion... And a desire to suppress the free speech of supporters of organized religion...

I might add the comparison between Beth Din courts and Sharia courts is not quite accurate.

While both are courts that are based on religious authority, Beth Din courts cannot rule on civil or secular law in most nations whereas Sharia courts in Islamic republics take on that role quite extensively. Religious police in Saudi Arabia have the power of life and death over the people. I don't recall any records of a Beth Din court ever handing down a death sentence in Brooklyn...on the other hand, the Sharia courts hand these down in Riyadh every Friday...bring the whole family. The comparison is a touch disingenuous.

It is only disingenuous if one assumes that the role of Sharia court HERE would be the same as in Saudi Arabia where it IS the actual courts... And not an alternative choice to secular court in the same manner as Beth Din... That (replacing secular court completely) wasn't the main thrust of the movement to allow it though... The main thrust was as an alternative CHOICE for those who wanted it... And there certainly was no SERIOUS effort made to allow it to make "life and death" decisions...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 123
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 10:24:29 AM
And that's what makes this nothing more than "Na na boo Look what I did, I hope your offended. Whatcha gonna do about it, huh, huh?"... It has no purpose other than to satisfy a gratuitous desire to exercise a favorite prejudice by taking cheap shots at organized religion...


And as I said, it's their choice ( infantile as it may be) to use their right to free speech in that way.


And a desire to suppress the free speech of supporters of organized religion...


Could you explain how a person choosing to draw an image of Mohammed is suppressing the free speech of supporters of organized religion?

Btw, we're still waiting for you to provide a link to a site informing us of ( as you posted) " free-speech suppressing terrorist bombings and threats by Jewish extremists".


I'm pretty sure it would p**s off the ones that made the threat

Oh, I'm sure it would... It would also p*ss off a lot of the Muslims who previously did not protest or threaten...


That's a risk that is taken when you have free speech, your actions may p*ss off some people. But the benefits of having free speech outweigh the detriments.


It would exascerbate the issue by creating more, not fewer protests and, likely, threats


That's another risk that come with free speech, some people may not like what you're saying. Another option would be to have that the government issue a list of what we can & can't say/print/draw/etc so that no one's feelings are hurt.

Free speech is legal, threats however aren't considered free speech & can result in criminal charges.
 chameleonf
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 124
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 11:09:06 AM
Interesting comments, given that the owners of this site have the ability to tell you how far you are entitled to comment with your posts or they have the ability to ban you from the site...much like the episode from SP being removed by a company which had the power to make that decision. If you wish to test the theory of absolute freedom of speach here, forget all manners and see how long it takes to catch up with you before you are silenced in this venue. If everyone who participated in Draw Mohammed Day didn't have their drawings published or broadcast by anyone, your free speach "entitlement" would effectively be quashed in any meaningful way - whether you like it or not. You couldn't demand they be published or broadcast, no matter how much you protest, although you have the right to that protest. Common sense aside, there is no "absolute" entitlement to free speach, even though you protest that there is. The entitlement may be there, but the ability to reach an audience is out of your control and at the whim of others.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 125
Everybody Draw Mohammed Day set for May 20th
Posted: 5/11/2010 11:33:58 AM

The entitlement may be there, but the ability to reach an audience is out of your control and at the whim of others.


Exactly. You may have the right to "speak" but that doesn't mean anyone has to listen or broadcast your speech.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" set for May 20th