Muslim cartoons = Flag Burning??? Anybody???

[the_angry_one]

Does anyone think there's something worthy here?

If conservatives feel that freedom of speech supercedes any religious sensitivity then shouldn't they also support and allow flag burning?

Any thoughts?

[purduejake]

1. Huh?

I am liberal and feel freedom of speech supercedes any religious sensitivity and think a lot of others here probably agree with me. You don't have a freedom to not be offended.

[the_angry_one]

2. I do too...however I think this issue might be a great vehicle...

to point out the hypocrasy of conservatives about flag burning.

If freedom of speech should supercede any religous sensitivity then it's a no brainer that they should also support flag burning.

[tn-guy]

6. I'm with you but I'd bet we re in the minority here

I agree wholeheartedly with you that freedom of speech sits above anyone's sensitivity and you are entirely correct that there is no freedom to not be offended.

I fear, however, that this is a minority position among DU regulars. I'd bet that most here would/do actually support speech codes that have been imposed on college campuses and support criminalizing "hate speech". It is terribly disappointing to acknowledge it but most free speech advocates, including the most liberal, generally support free speech only for that speech they agree with. Heck, there are many here who support the idea of additional punishment for criminals based upon what they were saying or thinking while committing the crime. Those folks not only reject free speech, they want wrong thoughts punished with jail time.

[ieoeja]

12. Should using hate-speech or a firearm be illegal?

Depends on the context. Using a firearm against someone in self-defense is legal. Otherwise, it is not.

Got that? Shooting someone is only illegal based on your thoughts.

In like fashion the "hate" does not make a hate-crime a crime. The crime makes it a crime. The hate makes it a FEDERAL crime. And why do we need this? Because time and time again state and local governments have chosen to ignore certain crimes because the state and local officials SUPPORT those crimes.

As to "free speech" on campus, who cares? I had an absolutely miserable time in college. But so what? I got my degree, got my first job, then tossed the transcript and diploma in a drawer somewhere. That was twenty years ago, and those four years in college haven't meant shit to me since.

Besides, I still don't understand this whole "college is too liberal" meme anyway. I graduated Indiana University (main campus) where I was surrounded by the most conservative people I have ever encountered in my life outside my freshman year of college in Auburn University (Alabama). The folks at Auburn absolutely hated me. The folks at IU were condenscendingly (sp?) friendly. I think they meant well in their attempts to change my walk, my talk, my clothes, my habits, etc. But it was annoying and insulting. I will never understand why my colloquialisms made me a stupid hillbilly while theirs made them hip.

[tn-guy]

26. A little clarification

I agree with you that the crime is what makes a hate-crime a crime, not the hate. However; that being said, there are those who favor additional punishment for the identical crime provided the perpetrator said certain things before or during the act (i.e. "hate speech"). To the extent that there is additional punishment based on speech then those who call for that are desiring to punish speech and/or the underlying thoughts behind the speech. Now, that may well be a defensible position. Perhaps some thought and speech should be prohibited and punished by the government; but I'd just like those who think so to honestly admit that that is what they want and then argue the case on the merits. As for me, I'm willing to put up with some idiotic speech in order to preserve free speech (and thought) for all, even speech and thought that I abhor.

As far as the "college is too liberal" argument goes - I don't know if college is too liberal, not liberal enough or just right. I don't really have a dog in that fight. I do contend, though, that speech codes on many campuses are attempts to restrict free speech in order to assert a phantom "right not to be offended". (Refer to reply #1.) And to answer the "who cares" argument. I care. I think protecting free speech for all is important. I was trying to point out that even at a supposedly progressive place like DU that there were many who may pay lip service to the idea of free speech but aren't really committed to the concept. This thread shows that at least some fall into that category.

[Viking12]

40. I call BS!!!

Show me college speech code!

[tn-guy]

43. Some examples

From the University of Michigan:

Prohibited is,
“Any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed … and that …


“Creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits, employment or participation in University<->sponsored extra-curricular activities.”



The University of Wisconsin prohibited addressing any individual in a way that:

“Demean the race, sex, religion, color, creed, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry or age of the individual or individuals; and


“Create an intimidating, hostile or demeaning environment for education, university-related work, or other university-authorized activity.”



Shippensburg College in Pennsylvania forbade “presumptive statements” and conduct or “attitude” that “annoys” another person or group.



Want more examples? There not hard to find if one actually tries.

[Viking12]

44. Nice try. Let's see the links to the actual current student codes

Not some out of context cut-and-paste from a 15 year document.

[MADem]

3. It's a tough topic

I go for freedom, myself, but then, there's the old HATE SPEECH business that could be raised in this context--not that it will get much traction in an overwhelmingly secular country like Denmark, but still..Nazi representations in Germany are prohibited, cross burnings can be, in context, but other times not, and so forth.

This situation is somewhat unique, because it deals with a religious prohibition that is well-founded within the religion (I don't recall a prohibition against cross burning, though I personally find the practice odious, e.g.). But then, where does one religion get off telling those not of the faith how to live their lives in their own country? Some people find putting women in beekeeper suits rather offensive as well, in addition to not allowing them to drive or travel alone.

One person's religious prohibition is another's political speech. Make a stink, change the channel...but resort to violence? That's a bit over the top, especially when the offense happened way the fuck back in SEPTEMBER of last year. If you are gonna be outraged, I think your outrage has to be fairly TIMELY to be believable--otherwise, it just looks like posturing.

The question is, who is doing the posturing, and why?

[adriennui]

4. both are free speech

as long as they're not privately owned or stolen.

[Igel]

5. There such a claim.

There are some significant differences in the two sets of people. As long as we keep the differences straight, the differences aren't a problem. But I think essentially the two propositions are reducible to the same set of primitives and problems.

There's the problem inherent in enforcing any hate-speech provision, but which immediately has to be dealt with: People assume that since the cartoons are interpreted to be hate speech that they're designed to be interpreted as hate speech. This isn't a foregone conclusion, IMHO. But the same problem arises with flag-burning: "Patriots" consider it as showing hate to the country, and disrespect and hate for them. This isn't a foregone conclusion, IMHO, even though the expression on some flag burners' faces is surely raw hate. Both the cartoons and flag-burning are plausibly intended to be divisive. The problem with all anti-hate-speech legislation, whether religious or secular in nature, is who gets to decide what's hate speech: do we have a list of words and acts, do we allow one side's word to carry more weight than the other side's, and if hate speech is uttered without the presumed object of hate actually present, is there a crime? What if there's a penalty imposed, and then it turns out that there really wasn't any hate involved?

The anti-flag-burning crowd, like the anti-picture-of-Muhammed crowd, can both talk. They can both complain. They can both shout 'hate speech', and assume that their interpretations of what they find offensive are the only possible interpretations, and their anger is righteous. They can both ask for laws or amendments to be passed. We can sit and discuss the laws when the various fires are extinguished. Both sets of laws and amendments would fail, if there's any sanity left in US politics.

But I find that one of the two sets of folk seems to be far more shrill than the other, and far more adamant as to the moral certainty of their cause. "Patriotism" may be ill-defined (only slightly less so, me thinks, than "Islam", if behaviors bear any relation to a belief system), but at least is secular; I dislike having an avowedly sectarian view foisted upon the legal political system. I prefer to look to my own psychosis for moral certainty, thank you: with such it is usually harder to have a reasonable discussion.

[genie_weenie]

7. But, this happened between Europe and the ME?

How does American flag burning play into the Mohammed Rigamarole?

all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.' Monty Python, Life of Brian 1979

[fujiyama]

9. I think he's trying to point out

hypocrisy in banning one form of speech but defending the other.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

8. BURN BABY BURN

I DID IT IN '69 AND I'LL BURN THE BITCH AGAIN TODAY!

[fujiyama]

10. Nobody ever accused

the rightwingers of being consistant.

Both are forms of free speech and both should be protected.

[genie_weenie]

11. Hmmm, I still hold this to be

a bullshit issue by those (European/Islamic) who wish to continue to cling to their established beliefs, i.e. Muslims are all thoughtless, angry, uncivilized savages and Europeans are rude, arrogant, racist, imperalists, bent on domination. It serves too many on both sides of this *issue* to not fan the flames.

I'm sure this will help:

Muhammed Cartoon T-Shirts unveiled
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/2/inktomi343238.php

Well, the really scary thing here is the juxtaposition of words/thoughts of the product manager:

“We can't let the terrorists win. We can not encourage this uncivilized behavior by caving in to their wishes,” said Nate Thomas, product manager for MetroSpy.

terrorists = all muslims, in his equation...

(sigh)

However, I didn't here about the Danes or the Papacy destroying or boycotting Islamic buildings after the burning, shit smearing, or stomping on the Denmark Flag (it does have a cross on it)

I don't know how to stop this...

[sandnsea]

13. Defiling Mohammed = pornography

To them. We don't recognize it when we see it because it isn't a part of our culture, but that doesn't make it any less real to the Muslims in the US or around the world. We outlaw various forms of the most offensive pornography, we can outlaw defiling Mohammed, if we cared to use a shred of mutual respect and common sense.

[EXDIA53]

14. So now we're tossing Freedom of the Press?

Count me out. I'd rather vote for John McCain than allow Islamofascists to dictate what we print. You got it right - THEIR culture, not ours. There is no RIGHT TO BE UN-OFFENDED in the US Constitution or any other legal document that I know of. If I turned over cars and started breaking windows every time I was offended at postings on this site, half of northern Virginia and DC would be wrecked by now. Just move on!

[sandnsea]

17. Islamofascists, riight

Think we made a wrong turn somewhere along the way, eh buddy??

[EXDIA53]

20. Actually, you did!

Unless the Democratic Party has merged with the Socialist Worker's Party and the DNC forgot to e-mail me.

[sandnsea]

23. Hey everybody, I'm a SOCIALIST NOW!!!!

You have NO IDEA how many people would get a hoot out of that!!!

[greyl]

32. Islamofascists is to Islam, like Right Wing Fundy is to Christianity. nt

[greyl]

15. Ibn Warraq on the cartoons

The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom -- freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?

A democracy cannot survive long without freedom of expression, the freedom to argue, to dissent, even to insult and offend. It is a freedom sorely lacking in the Islamic world, and without it Islam will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, medieval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. Without this fundamental freedom, Islam will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.

Unless, we show some solidarity, unashamed, noisy, public solidarity with the Danish cartoonists, then the forces that are trying to impose on the Free West a totalitarian ideology will have won; the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest. Do not apologize.
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

edit: Medieveal mindsets are very different from indigenous mindsets. Medieval mindsets are a product of our culture.

[sandnsea]

16. No expression is being silenced

1,000 different cartoons could have been printed to depict Islam as a murderous band of thugs, freedom of expression alive and well. Write anything you want to about Mohammed, Islam, Sunnis, Shi'a, whatever. One little thing, don't defile the image of Mohammed. That doesn't squelch freedom of expression anymore than the elimination of Sambo has in the US.

This is a right wing propaganda campaign and I'm stunned so many DUers don't get it.

[greyl]

18. wrong. Jyllands-Posten is a liberal paper.

Those who are sympathizing with the murderous radical fundamentalists don't get it.
It is they who are falling into the hands of the right-wing.
I'm not stunned at all.

[sandnsea]

21. They apologized

Hmm.

Then another Christian fundamentalist newspaper picked up the cartoons and published them again, and then more newspapers in Europe published them again, and added more.

Why isn't all of this being told on the teevee? Why aren't the cartoons on the teevee? Because they're more interested in displaying the violent behavior of the radicals they want to kill than the stuipdity of the cartoons we're supposed to get in a war over.

I'm not sympathizing with anybody, btw, I think the whole thing is stupid.

[greyl]

24. Sort of.

They still stand behind their original opinion that the cartoons are, in their words, "sober".
Artists are getting death threats, and Priests are getting shot in the back in church.
I think the paper is showing more integrity than cnn msnbc etc... could dream of.

[sandnsea]

27. Two wrongs don't make a right

The wrong of those killing over cartoons is obvious. Insisting on the right to print the cartoons, knowing that it's going to incite killings, may not be morally or legally wrong, but it sure is stupid. Just like wearing a Sambo t-shirt into south central. There's a reason those restaurants don't exist anymore and there's nothing unConstitutional about it, they were offensive and they're gone. Same thing with the depiction of Mohammed, we just don't need to do it.

[greyl]

30. "knowing that it's going to incite killings?" Holy shit.

These cartoons are not racist.
Islam is a religion, not a race.
Sambo racism isn't related in the least.

Your statement about "knowing that it's going to incite killings" is akin to the attitude some men have when they blame rape victims because of what they were wearing.
I think you're coming from a kind-hearted place, but... I think you're wrong.

[sandnsea]

37. Wow, I know you're not kidding

But just wow. You really don't understand that people born into a religion no more make that choice than their race? Incredible.

No, I would not blame the cartoonist if they were killed. I already said that. This is more akin to pushing a naked woman into a room full of 100 drunken sailors and expressing shock that one of them rapes her. Does that mean I condone the rape or blame the victim? Hell no. Doesn't even mean I thinks sex causes rape. Just that there are certain realities, like them or not. Freedom comes with responsibilities and when we fail to set the lines ourselves, outside forces set them for us.

[greyl]

41. Being born into, then choosing as an adult

are different. Also, a distinction between moderate Muslims and violent fundy Muslims needs to be made.
Not all Muslims were so offended by the original 12 cartoons that they rioted.
Don't forget about the 3 fakes which were specifically designed to incite a reaction.

[CJCRANE]

42. "Islam is a religion, not a race"

However, in European countries many of the muslim minority are often from only one or two countries and when the RW criticises Islam it's very clear what minority they're referring to. That's why in Britain they've recently outlawed incitement to religious hatred.

[greyl]

19. Ask yourself why you haven't seen these cartoons on the MSM.

Then ask yourself if you're ever going to see the Abu Ghraib photos.
Then think of Cindy Sheehan at the SOTU, if you care to.

[sandnsea]

22. Media control

Yeah, ask yourself why you're seeing what you're seeing. Geezo. Plain as the nose on your face.

[greyl]

25. To me, it looks a sneaky affront on freedom of speech and dissent

This story is being double-spinned, iow.
Everyone is distracted by the first spin, and missing what's underneath.

To make my position clear, fwiw:
I support the artists.
I support the Jyllands-Posten for printing the cartoons.
Condi et al are conveniently using the cartoon situation to distract from the authentically blasphemous acts that our government and military have perpetrated against MODERATE muslims.

[sandnsea]

28. Sambo Restaurants?

Do you support those?

I respect the religious belief of Muslims and find no need to support the right to defile the specific image of Mohammed. Just like I don't support images depicting blacks as Sambos. Beyond that, I would support what you say.

[greyl]

31. The cartoons aren't racist, first of all.

Which subthread should we stick to? :)

[fujiyama]

35. "One little thing...

Don't defile the image of Muhammad".

I'll have the right to defile any dead religious figure I want, thank you very much. This isn't Saudi Arabia. Mocking religious sensibilities is part of living in a freee societty. I would tell that to a member of any religion.

I'm absolutely astonished that you are excusing blatant infringement on free expression. And don't tell me, it's a "form of porn". Frankly, that doesn't wash with me. This isn't child porn or S and M which depict VIOLENT acts against people or are clearly against thehe law because they exploit minors. These analogies are ridiculous.

[The Magistrate]

33. Not A Good Analogy, Ma'am

There are three grounds for outlawing pornography, two of which are swill and one of which is reasonable. The two which are swill are that it offends some persons' moral beliefs, and that it leads to sexual behavior that is morally offensive or criminal. The first is an unwarrantable imposition of some persons' moral beliefs on others who do not share them and cannot be justly required to, and the second is false as a matter of fact. The one which is reasonable is that there are some pornographies that cannot be made without the commission of a crime. Circulating photographs of an adult engaging in sexual acts with a child is an example, for an adult doing what was photographed commits a serious crime, and the "pornography" is merely evidence of it.

Disrespect of a religious figure cannot be a real crime in that sense, for no real harm is inflicted on anyone; indeed, the person who claims to be harmed by it actually is the agent of the harm's infliction, for it is only that oerson's voluntary adherence to a belief in that matter that makes the thing strike him or her as harmful, and a oerson who does not adhere to that belief will experience no harm at all. But anyone struck on the knee with a sledge-hamer would experience harm; what was believed would not enter into the assessment at all, from any angle.

[sandnsea]

38. Nice philosphy, reality is never so easy

Which I suspect you know so I won't belabor the point.

[Snivi Yllom]

29. free speech is free speech

period

[Benfea]

34. Flag burning? How about the Piss Christ?

They protest to get Harry Potter movies removed from theaters because it offends their religion. They protest movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and demand that it be removed from theaters because it offends their religion. They demand that Spongebob Squarepants be removed from the TV because it offends their religion. They demand that the Teletubbies be banned from television because it offends their religion. More recently, they tried to put a stop to people saying "Happy Holidays" because acknowledging other religions is offensive to Christianity, and they've been doing an awful lot of hollering about that TV show "Book of Daniel."

Every time you turn around, they're demanding that free speech be curtailed because it offends their religion, but the instant someone else's religion is offended, then suddenly they're taking the opposite side of the argument as if that's the position they've always taken.

Fucking hypocrites.

[greyl]

36. eggzakly nt

[catmother]

39. i don't like to see flags being burned especially ours, but i think

it falls under free speech.:dem: