Oh God, here we go again - Muhammed Cartoons

[BadMojo]

In case you haven't heard; at least 18 Danish newspapers have reprinted the Muhammed cartoons, to manifest the right of free speech, and to eradicate any doubt that free speech is one of the cornerstones in Danish society - even if it occasionally offends people.

(would you like to know more? YES (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) | NO (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.))

Personally, I don't give a rats backside of what they do - but what about you?

All in all I think the whole business is idiotic. All nations offends - Including Muslims:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[coffeeloverfreak]

On a related note: Has anyone been following the Ezra Levant (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) story here in Canada?

I'm a big proponent of freedom of speech. But it's easy to support speech you agree with. It's a much truer litmus test if you can support speech you vehemently disagree with.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
-President Andrew Shepard, The American President (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[ssfanatic]

I dont give a rats ass either, but it is pretty funny ;D

[iamnotspock]

I like that cartoon. Makes a pretty clear point.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I'm pretty amazed at the apathy actually. Nobody gives a "rat's ass" until it's their speech that's being shut down. And by then, it's too late.

[iamnotspock]

I think we just got used to it down here in the States

[Allie]

I think this is the ultimate test: ACLU in defense of Nazi demonstration/1st Amendment right....in a predominently Jewish home town of Skokie, IL (1977). There was another case recently in Cincinnati last year.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I understand the fundamental principle for the defense. Some days, I grit my teeth and agree with them, provided that we have a bigger and louder counter demonstration. Most days though, I can't stomach any defense for it, given the catastrophic history of Nazism.

On a related note:
Wikipedia and Islam/Muhammed.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

Who needs crappy cartoons about Muhammad when we have Achmed the Dead Terrorist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)! ;D

[coffeeloverfreak]

Hehe another Jeff Dunham fan, I see? Love it, love it.

"Silence! I kill you!"

[Caramel]

Hehe another Jeff Dunham fan, I see? Love it, love it.

"Silence! I kill you!"

"Wait..if I'm dead, that means I get my 72 virgins! Are you my virgins? I hope not!"

"Well did they say it would be only female virgins?"

:thumbsup:

That guy is super funny. ^^

[l345l]

initially, the cartoonists were only trying to put forward a political statement, not to offend the muslim minority in denmark. but i think reprinting them is a bad idea and will just provoke more violence.

badmojo, er du dansk?

[BadMojo]

initially, the cartoonists were only trying to put forward a political statement, not to offend the muslim minority in denmark. but i think reprinting them is a bad idea and will just provoke more violence.

badmojo, er du dansk?

Jeps, det er jeg.. :thumbsup:

[coffeeloverfreak]

initially, the cartoonists were only trying to put forward a political statement, not to offend the muslim minority in denmark. but i think reprinting them is a bad idea and will just provoke more violence.

But don't you see? That's why they're doing it. That's why they should do it. And why every democracy in the world should follow suit, whether with those cartoons, or with whatever else they want to say.

By reprinting those cartoons, they're sending the message: We will not surrender to terror or threats. We will not allow you to dictate what we can or cannot say through violence or threats. We will not be held hostage.

Terrorism only works if you let it. If you allow it to erode your freedoms (the Patriot Act is a perfect example), then you allow it to achieve victory. The goal of terrorism is to enforce the will of the terrorist on the public. By republishing the cartoons, Denmark is saying, screw you, freedom of speech is legal here, whether you like it or not, and we're not going to capitulate to threats.

You know why it's legal to offend Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc.? Because they don't go around setting off bombs or killing journalists. If societies make it illegal or taboo to offend Muslims because one of them might bomb or shoot you for it, then that attributes legitimacy to the methods of bombing or shooting. It sets up a dangerous double-standard. And it provides incentive for other groups to use the same methods to achieve their own ends, too.

[l345l]

By reprinting those cartoons, they're sending the message: We will not surrender to terror or threats. We will not allow you to dictate what we can or cannot say through violence or threats. We will not be held hostage.



wow, you explained it so well. thanks, i think i understand the circumstance better. It was just the pacifist side of me that doesn't like conflict.

[coffeeloverfreak]

I'll give another example: When I was a student, the university I went to was very left-wing (as many are) and a group of students of a certain political bent had shown themselves more than willing to stage violent demonstrations - even riots - if someone said something they disagreed with.

If a guest speaker or event series came to campus that they agreed with, nothing happened other than perhaps some peaceful protest, so the events went ahead as scheduled. That sort of speech was okay.

If, however, a guest speaker or event series came to campus that they disagreed with, it got shut down, using any and all means - legal and illegal. Notoriously, one former Israeli Prime Minister was prevented from speaking on campus after there was a riot, during which students and professors were beaten, punched, kicked, subjected to tear gas, windows were smashed, and the riot police clashed with the demonstrators. Other kinds of speech were shut down using a manipulation of student government rules. Any dissenting clubs had their status removed using technicalities and loopholes. Professors with the "wrong" kind of views were fired on technicalities. Some more subtle methods were used too, for instance, all campus newspapers and publications were controlled by the same student group, so only one type of view was allowed to be published in the campus media. Students who wrote papers with the "wrong" views were graded down or even failed.

The de facto result was that some types of opinions were okay to voice, and others were not. This on a university campus, which is supposed to be a bastion of free speech.

The situation was finally improved after the riot woke many people out of their apathy and they came out to bring down the student government and vote in a more open era. From what I hear, there are still many problems there, as there are on many university campuses across North America and Europe. But it's better, whatever that means.

This is an example of what happens when you capitulate to free speech threats. After the aforementioned riot, the university shied away from inviting anyone else to speak that they thought might be "controversial" because they were afraid of the consequences. It didn't even take another riot to shut down opposing speech. One riot, and the threat of further violence, was enough. That, in a nutshell, is terrorism.

It takes true courage to stand up to that kind of tyranny. It's hard to do when you agree with the opinions being suppressed. It's even harder to do when you disagree with those opinions. But it's incumbent on all of us. Because when certain kinds of speech are shut down for no reason other than the willingness of their opponents to use violent means, everyone suffers.