What is the limit of western freedom of expresion?

Remove all ads!

I've just read that an Iranian newspaper is going to run a similar contest, based on the holocaust during WW2. I can't think of anything to say yet (I'm slow, really slow). You can check out www.hamshahri.net for yourself (there's a link at the bottom "international contest").
It says this contest is a test to western freedom of expression, which I think it means they expect western people to just sit in a corner and do nothing, mumbling "freedom of expression, freedom of expression..." while rocking heads (!).
As a final note, I'd like to say, from a pure rpg posture, that I would certainly participate if I were a better painter, just to know (*know*?) how evil I could be. Please don't flame me for this.

 

As tasteless as this is, I don't we can do anything about it, as it would invalidate our Freedom of Speech argument.


Of course, I still see a difference between denying or making fun of the Holocaust (especially since many of the victims are still alive today) and making fun of a guy who died over a thousand years ago.

 

Mmm. I personally think that only a complete moron could honestly believe that the holocaust didn't happen.

Then again, I also think only a complete moron would make death/terrorism threats over a cartoon.

Denying the holocaust is within the freedom of speech in most countries. It's completely stupid, naive, and horribly offensive to those who lived through or lost loved ones during the holocaust.

It's really just another round of rampant anti-Semitism. Oh well.

 

Wow, I can't believe they're (both sides) making such a fuss over a cartoon. Here in America, we (most of us) understand that nothing in a cartoon is serious, unless it is specifically billed as such. Here in America, cartoons like Family Guy, Futurama, and just about everything else Cartoon Network runs at night, especially on Sunday, make jokes of everything everyone anywhere holds dear, especially we ourselves. In Futurama, the Statue of Liberty is blown up about every 3 episodes, the military is run by a pansie guy in a short skirt, and New York City sucks! And we (I) regularly laugh at it ourselves. Just remember, he who learns to laugh at himself will never cease to be entertained.

 

I second that. I'm always laughing at myself.

Pretty much what I say to the people who are getting riled up about these cartoons is: You don't have to look. And if someone in your religion brought it to your attention and had you look, he's the one you should deck for breaking the rules. Of all people, those following the same set of guidelines really ought to know what to do and what not to do. If you're steamed about the idea, boycott all you want; I'm actually in favor of that measure.

But rioting and taking it out on un-related people? If you're one of the miniscule number who are actually doing that, get a clue. If Bob spits in your eye, you don't slug Steve because they're brothers, and you certainly don't slug Steve because Bob lives in Idaho and Steve lives in Washington (or New Zealand) but was born in Idaho and doesn't even know who Bob is. The only place you should be burning down is the paper, and even then you had better expect some legal repercussions because you didn't go through the proper channels of protest.

It's utterly ridiculous. The rioters are overreacting, and the person who printed the images won't even admit to the mistake! Not even an "Oops, I didn't realize it would be so offensive." (The paper did issue an apology, but the individual is unrepentant, AFAIK.) A bunch of buttheads doing headbutts.

 

I don't know why Iran is so eagerly trying to get their butts kicked, but i predict it won't be long anymore.

 

Seconded. And actually, I second the first part of your post, too.

Christ. I've become a shill.

 

The original cartoons shouldn't have been published, IMO. Not because I believe so many Moslems would have been offended by a depiction of the prophet (although there would have been some), but because it was essentially a message that suggested Islam was always about blowing things up. You don't need to be a genius to see how that would annoy people, especially some of the more outspoken and radical mullahs, or how it would be used to propagate the concept of Western Islamophobia and bigotry by religious and political leaders.

I think freedom of speech is a great thing, and should be protected. That said, if you're being bloody stupid, you should be treated as such. It's not a license to do or say or offend whoever you want and avoid any and all consequences of your actions. If you're going to say or do it, and as proudly as some of those involved have claimed to have been, then you should have the decency to face whatever reaction there is. That isn't to say that the rioters are justified - because they aren't.

If you deliberately incite violence or contempt with your publications, you should be ready to cop it from those you offend. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a football match, politics or religion. I find both the original cartoons and the proposed Holocaust denial ones in extremely poor taste, and don't think their publication will do anything except make a few people feel smugly self-satisfied and many others furious.

I also think that anyone who published the first batch should, as a matter of balance, publish the second. Those who self-censored the first cartoons have not violated any basic principles of freedom of speech, IMO, so long as they do not publish the second lot.

 

Freedom of speech, "for Dummies:"

http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-1439.html

 

Good on them - they're doing exactly the same thing the Danes did - testing to see whether the 'other side' are lame. Somehow, I can't help but think that the original publications managed to prove the Muslim world more lame than these new publications will prove the Western world lame

Just because you're offended by something doesn't mean that you need to ban it or riot over it, sheesh...

 

First thing is that freedom of speech is not freedom from other people being offended by what you say. Of course, when they start rioting, there's also your right to life, property etc. But there being freedom of speech doesn't mean it's evil to be offended by a cartoon or any other form of expression, especially if the author is being an ass.

It's a great paradox that freedom of speech of some people is used to curtail the freedom of speech of others. By this I mean speaking something against someone else speakingg a different thing before. So you're so evil because you violate his freedom of speech by... speaking.

Plus, freedom of speech is one of the most prominent parts of the political correctness standard. But show me a better instrument of limiting freedom of speech than political correctness is.

Of course it's different when someone draws a satirical cartoon depicting a prophet of a religion and when someone else makes fun of the suffering of many people. After all, they aren't drawing funny pictures of Moses but of the Holocaust. However, the West is in its own trap now, having used the freedom of speech argument. I actually sort of anticipated Iran's move.

Yet another thing is that Christianity has been ridiculed in much harsher ways and yet people who have a problem with that are seen as worse than the poor unsettled Muslims who demolish embassies, burn flags and the like. And I can't imagine there being so much fuss about a Christianity-related cartoon.

Oh, and imagine an atheism-bashing cartoon. Now that would be even worse than antisemitism...

 

Actually, I'm having a hard time imagining it. They don't really have anything concrete to bash since it's mostly just a rejection of other religions. AFAIK, they don't have a Jesus or a God or any prophet, so who would you make fun of? You could always have God or someone tap an atheist on the shoulder and he would refuse to acknowledge Him, but you wouldn't know he's an atheist unless you have some sort of label (i.e. "athiest ->" ).

 

The greatest works are those that make you question everything you "know," and may make you reconsider.

Instead of reconsidering I see people threatening terrorism and rioting. LOL

 

@Felinoid: You can't make fun of atheism the same way as of Christianity or Judaism or Islam (a specific religious system). But you can make fun of the belief that there is no god the same way as of the belief that there is one because, well, it's still a belief. So it's hard but possible. But imagine if a religious fundamentalist came up with some drawings ridiculing atheism. The bad reaction would be stronger than if an atheist ridiculed religion the same way.

 

I consider myself an atheist, but i honestly can't think of any image or cartoon that would offend me. But that's probably i because i have a life and more important issues on my mind, like for instance making sure there's always a considerable amount of beer in my fridge.

 

I find it kind of ironic that by blowing up the Danish embassy (I am correct in saying that, am I not?) that the muslims who did that action are just proving the cartoon's message.


If anyone is hurt because of the cartoon, who is to blame? Not the cartoonist, but the person who did the hurting. No one says you have to look at the cartoon, and the person who printed it certainly has the right to post it. It may be rude, but no one is allowed to be hurt because of it...

 

It seems that these iranians didn't grasp the true meaning of freedom of expression. We must remember that a cartoon in itself wasn't the source of anger among these people but rather a message contained in it (like somebody said). Going back to our topic, one can clearly see this "real malice" (any lawyers here?); this intention to hurt other people by publishing something harmful to them. This is, in my opinion, the limit of freedom of expression.
As Saramago said in one article, this rioting seems a bit manipulated, since those cartoons were published in September; any demonstration should have been done then, and not now, or at least not like this. But that's another subject. All in all, both "sides" need to learn some manners.

 

How do you publish something harmful to someone? 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me' - come on people, we learnt this in first grade. People who are hurt by a cartoon... *shakes head*

Disagree with the message, maybe even be a little offended - but ffs, get a grip and don't act like it's a frigging mortal wound to your soul or whatever.

And yeah, the riots were manipulated - but either a) No one's telling the rioters - which means that the government/media in those countries suck, or b) the rioters don't care, in which case they're still retarded.

Also note that in countries that only saw the originals there have been protests - one has to wonder whether they would care if a ****storm hadn't been stirred up in other countries.

And if you want to draw cartoons against atheists - by all means go ahead: if they're well enough done you'll get some applause, more likely than anything else.

(It's a shame that the cartoons that started this whole mess were actually kinda lame - there was only one really clever one in the whole set...)

 

Its funny how (all) Muslims can be condemned for being religious fanatics, but people forget about the 'Christians' that also use violence in the name of their religion. The militant Christians are more likely to receive support and praise for their violence