Behold the face of American Free Speech/Anti-Islam

Post Reply New Topic

Sure, we have freedom of speech, but with any freedom comes responsibility. While one has the right to use that freedom to inflame emotion, he or she has to ask: Should I? If knowing that sort of expression of speech is offensive to the point of sparking violence, then that's when self censorship should come in - not that those Anti-Islamic bigots are able to grasp such a notion, as they are so consumed with hate.

And why would anybody want to sit in the front of the bus, or move to the nice neighborhood, or send their kids to the good school? It's just going to make people mad. And some of them might get violent!

Our constitutional protection of the natural right of free speech means nothing if it doesn't protect unpopular speech.

There is a world of difference between genuine civil rights struggles, and speech to incite hatred. If anything, the Anti-Islamic bigots demonstrating outside the Arizona Mosque have much more in common with the rednecks who demonstrated in support of segregation.

Sure, absolutely; but I'm just saying that, as with any right, one has to use it responsibly. Those bigoted kooks in Arizona have the right to say whatever they want, but that line bordering every right would have been crossed if someone acted out violently because of their words.

That's called a heckler's or thug's veto, and is antithetical to the very idea of free speech. It's not the responsibility of the speaker not to provoke violence, it's the responsibility of everyone not to react violently to speech they find distasteful or offensive.

More like 'behold logical fallacies being used to support an illiberal agenda'...

As a debater I see something relatively different going on. The host clearly had an agenda, that agenda being to attack an individual and do everything he can to discredit and make him look like a fool. In the end the conversation became a joke because it just became a planned personal attack.

On the other hand the organizer came in expecting to have a fair conversation on the topic matter at hand and was not prepared for a planned attack on his character. The announcer used a combination of leading questions and talking over the organizer to make himself in control. Now this kind of tactic if used skillfully can be used to make people say whatever you want. For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Now in regards to this event I believe events like this must happen. A heckler's veto can never be allowed, ever. The reality is that we should not have to watch what we say, do, or think out of fear that we might be killed. I've always said and firmly stood to the position that you can come up to me and say whatever you want. You can insult me however you please that is after all your right, however I would request that you respect my right to say as i please to.

The hypocrisy of this situation is evident. Few people at most would complain if people went outside of a christian church and drew Jesus in disgusting positions. However, change the church to a mosque and Jesus to Muhammad and suddenly people have to worry if a "radical" might try to kill them.

Of course they would complain, any religion would, and they would have the right to do so.

Change the time period a couple thousand years back (or so) and this situation would elicit a similar response from Christians as it does with today's extremist Islamists.

Unfortunately, your premise is incorrect on two points. There have been dozens of drawing contests meant to be hostile towards Christianity without much outrage at all. Additionally, no one has ever died because of a picture of Jesus.

Additionally, church history is largely misunderstood but that is a different conversation.

The difference exists only in your mind. Objectively there is none. In both cases the person peaceably exercising his individual rights is in the right, the person who responds with violence is in the wrong.

You know who is motivated by bigotry and hatred? People willing to commit murder over a goddamn cartoon. I wouldn't set out to offend anybody's ordinary religious sensibilities just for fun, but when the challenge is 'You can't draw X or I'll kill you,' the proper response is to draw X as often as possible. Otherwise we don't just surrender to irrationality, we enshrine it.

Paraphrasing Twain: the man who won't defend his legal right to free speech has no advantage over the man who lacks that right.

I won't post them directly here, but to see what a rational philosophical stance looks like, google 'Stephen Fry offended' and 'Bosch Fawstin winning cartoon.'

I'd love to see any articles that prove your point.

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/7 ... us-contest -note that this is decades old....there may have been some out cry i sure as hell have not heard any. but, I can say one thing for certain no one has ever died over it. That was from a quick google search-first result-. You know googles a great tool i suggest you try it:)

Son of a gun. That's not even close to being the same. I can't see many Christians caring much about a hunky Jesus contest, and personally, I'd even laugh at them if they did. (though I wouldn't persecute them for their views)

Also no one paraded these pictures outside of a church trying to incite a reaction so it's no wonder that there was no outcry.

No, it's the positive or negative intent that separates those calling for civil rights from bigots out to snuff out someone else' rights. As for those Muslim fanatics who kill over cartoons, they are cut from the same cloth as the bigots harassing peaceful American Muslims. Sure, they all have the right to say whatever they want, but I reserve the right to say that everyone would be that much better off if they just shut up.

Defiance of irrationality is defiance of irrationality. I see no evidence for this "negative intent" you're divining somehow. You do know that the civil rights protestors often marched where they knew they would provoke a violent response (in their case, from local authorities)?

There is only one group here seeking to "snuff out someone else's rights": radical Islamists.



I thought I read that the last pair of would-be mass murderers frequented that very mosque. Maybe I was mistaken. Anyway, why aren't "peaceful Muslims" demonstrating against the violence of the fanatics? Every now and then Christianity is confronted with another "PissChrist" or the like and controversy ensues – but if some radical sect actually tried to kill those responsible, I believe "peaceful Christians" of all stripes would unite in denouncing the radicals. You wouldn't be able to turn on the TV without seeing another bishop or whatever making it clear that the radicals did not represent his religion. Has there been a huge moderate Muslim anti-violence backlash which I've missed somehow?