Islam - What's your view on it?

[Famine]

@Famine, do you think it's OK to wave around the infamous "Behead those who insult Islam" sign though?

Yep.

I mean, to me it's a pretty obvious call for violence against a specific group (even if in this case it's rather vague), which shouldn't be protected by freedom of speech?

Why not?

Yes, I do think people do that. I have seen it happen plenty of times in this very subforum.

I've seen literally zero instances in this thread at least of people saying that people shouldn't be able to object to things they say. I've seen many instances of people saying that complaining about what people say is as valuable a part of freedom of speech as saying it in the first place.

For every right, there is a responsibility. This is an analogy that I have drawn several times, but it's like shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Sure, you're exercising your right to free speech, but if there is no fire and the end result is a stampede that causes death or injury, then you're going to be held responsible for it. No court is going to accept "I was exercising my right to free speech and those people caught up in the stampede should have realised that there was no fire" as a defence. Now, that's an extreme (and simplified) example, but I think the point holds true - your rights aren't something that entitles you to do whatever you want, whenever you want, because that's a nine year-old's way of thinking. Rights simply outline what you can do without fear of unreasonable consequence, provided that you exercise them responsibly. On a certain level, this is guided by morality; or what we consider to be right in the absence of law.

We self-censor every day, and it's not a negative thing. If a student hands me a draft of an essay that, if it were submitted for marking, would receive less than 25%, am I going to say "That's terrible and there is no hope that you can turn this around in two days"? Of course not. Sure, I would be exercising my right to freedom of speech, but I also know it's going to do more harm than good. For one, it's not appropriate. Two, it does nothing to actually address the issues with the work. And three, it's likely to turn the student against me in future, which makes it harder for me to teach, harder for them to learn, and will ultimately result in their under-achievement. Since none of that is worth exercising my right to freedom of speech by saying that their work is terrible, I'm going to be responsible about it and instead concentrate on what works and what does not. If the work is not of a high standard, then I will make that clear, but I won't be brutal about it and I will always show a student the way forward. Some may call that self-censorship, but I think of it as being responsible about what I say because I know what the power of my own words is.

And yet everyone I've seen who discusses rights like freedom of expression in this forum says that rights are paired with responsibilities and freedom of expression is not a guarantee of a platform from which to express nor immunity from the results of it.

So who are these people saying that freedom of speech doesn't allow people to dislike what they say?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Emphasis mine:

I've seen literally zero instances in this thread at least of people saying that people shouldn't be able to object to things they say.

Yes, I do think people do that. I have seen it happen plenty of times in this very subforum.

I made no specific references to this thread.

 

[Famine]

Emphasis mine:

I made no specific references to this thread.

And now mine:

And yet everyone I've seen who discusses rights like freedom of expression in this forum says that rights are paired with responsibilities and freedom of expression is not a guarantee of a platform from which to express nor immunity from the results of it.

So who are these people saying that freedom of speech doesn't allow people to dislike what they say?

 

[BobK]

So who are these people saying that freedom of speech doesn't allow people to dislike what they say?

Since the assertion has been made that such people exist, I would very much like to see the answer to this question as well.

 

[Milouse]

​

I don't agree with their message, but they're allowed to express how upset they are about words and pictures with some other words and pictures - under the exact same principle that allowed the original words and pictures to be expressed - not with punching or guns.

Having read lot of messages from you in these thread, which i usually agree with, i'm surprised you've written that.

We're talking death threat here. If someone threat you of death, will you:
a) Make an answer, then wait with optimism. You're in trouble.
b) Start necessary preventive actions.

In the b) case, you're either in a country that can protect you because it doesn't apply fully unlimited free speech, or not in that kind of country and then you're in trouble too.

Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance.

 

[Famine]

Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance.

But then you'd have to be intolerant yourself...


I laugh at people who carry signs like that and get on with my life. They're literally not doing a single thing that affects me in any way.

Ban them from having a public strop in the street and you start affecting my life. Aside from criminalising certain types of expression (which sets a legal precedent for other forms being criminalised too), you breed unrest and the kind of simmering, downtrodden underculture that is more likely to take direct action that actually results in casualties.


I actually like hearing the stupidity and bigotry of the intolerant. It means I'm aware of them and can avoid them - much like @Mrs. Famine does with the idiots who share Britain First tripe on her Facebook feed.

 

[Dotini]

I actually like hearing the stupidity and bigotry of the intolerant.

In America, we enjoy it so much we pay extra to get more of it.

 

[Milouse]

But then you'd have to be intolerant yourself...

No, because it's a part of the definition of tolerance. You're only playing with the words as they look like.
Otherwise you couldn't choose tolerance, which oppose intolerance.

I laugh at people who carry signs like that and get on with my life. They're literally not doing a single thing that affects me in any way.

I've taken an example (at least i thought it was implicit) of someone threatening you in your direct environment. My point is about free speech limits, not public message from people who live in a country that jails those who think otherwise, which leads me to laugh too (because, sadly, i can't free them).

 

[Dotini]

Famine is of course completely wrong (in the real world) that threats are free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections.

 

[Famine]

No, because it's a part of the definition of tolerance. You're only playing with the words as they look like. Otherwise you couldn't choose tolerance, which oppose intolerance.

Intolerance of anything is by definition not tolerance - even if you're intolerant of intolerance...

I've taken an example (at least i thought it was implicit) of someone threatening you in your direct environment.

Words don't threaten me. Silly idiots carrying signs that call for the death of people who say rude things about their religions don't threaten me. Taking away someone's ability to say what they wish threatens me.

My point is about free speech limits, not public message from people who live in a country that jails those who think otherwise, which leads me to laugh too (because, sadly, i can't free them).

You live in that country. So do I - we lock up people for making crass jokes on Twitter. Our neighbours in Germany lock up people who say the Holocaust isn't real.

People have the right to be wrong and make themselves look like utter morons. I want to know if my next door neighbour is a racist and the only way to find out is to let them openly express racism without fear of being put in prison - otherwise they become a closet and bitter racist with entrenched views because it looks like society has different rules for different types of racist.

Famine is of course completely wrong (in the real world) that threats are free speech.

Ah, once again you mean the USA's implementation of free speech about which I wasn't talking yet again.

Free speech cannot be limited or it isn't free - it's limited. The USA has constitutionally guaranteed free expression which its overseers have chosen to limit. That doesn't reflect on the values of free speech but the value the USA puts on it and as such I don't really care whether it's legal to shout "fire" in a cinema or threaten people in the USA.

When I say "freedom of speech" I mean "freedom of speech", not "local laws governing what counts as acceptable communication". I'd have thought with the number of times I'd pointed out the stupidity of the UK putting people in prison for telling a joke about a paedophile on Twitter it'd be obvious that I'm not referring to legislature, but apparently it needs restating for you.


Threats are free speech.

 

[Dotini]

Threats are free speech.

Only in the theater of your mind, not in the real world.

 

[Famine]

Only in the theater of your mind, not in the real world.

Apparently you're not getting it.

When I say "freedom of speech" I mean "freedom of speech", not "local laws governing what counts as acceptable communication". I'd have thought with the number of times I'd pointed out the stupidity of the UK putting people in prison for telling a joke about a paedophile on Twitter it'd be obvious that I'm not referring to legislature, but apparently it needs restating for you.

Why is this difficult for you to grasp - or are you in one of your devil's advocate, deliberately obtuse phases?

Freedom of speech is a concept, not a law. When laws limit freedom of speech you don't have freedom of speech, you have limited speech, so there is no possibility in the real world for freedom of speech to even exist in conjunction with laws limiting it.

Threats are free speech. When threats are illegal, there is no free speech.

 

[Mark T]

People have the right to be wrong and make themselves look like utter morons. I want to know if my next door neighbour is a racist and the only way to find out is to let them openly express racism without fear of being put in prison

Christopher Hitchens made a good point about people who say controversial or unpopular things.. I don't know if he was quoting someone else but his message stuck with me. People who have something radical to say, something which goes against the grain of popular opinion have just as much right to express themselves. In some instances those people should be given a slightly higher pedestal from which to do so as what they're saying could contain a fragment of truth which could change our perception of something. Alternatively it could be that person is completely wrong, a complete bigot or bordering on insane. If you can hear people saying stupid things it makes society more aware of them and that's a good thing. It allows public debate.

He closed by saying that by denying free speech you ultimately deny yourself the right to listen.

 

[Dotini]

Freedom of speech is a concept, not a law.

To all rational people, do not attempt to actually exercise the conceptual free speech that Famine rhapsodizes about. It could get you killed in a heartbeat. In a libertarian's ideal world, of course we would all want unlimited free speech. But we don't live in that world. In this world, the real world, the freedom of speech is a right with limits, and comes with costs and responsibilities. His sort of philosophical musings belong in the philosophy, or conceptual thread.

 

[Famine]

are you in one of your devil's advocate, deliberately obtuse phases?

That'll be a big yes then.

Freedom that's limited isn't freedom. You keep trying to insert 'limited by legislation' into the word 'freedom' and pretending they're the same. They aren't. You should already know this, what with your insistence on portraying yourself as a reasonable and intelligent human and the multitude of occasions on which I've reminded you that they aren't, but now you're very much aware I expect you to stop doing it.

 

[Dotini]

I expect you to stop doing it.

Doing what? Holding the mainstream view of free speech? Will you deny my right to speak on this forum if I do not hew to your particular, unorthodox definition for free speech?

 

[Joel]

I would assume continuing to bring up the law when that's not what he's talking about. Do we need to go through the car forum and add a caveat to every mention of top speed above 80mph that it's only a hypothetical top speed that you can reach off of public roads?

 

[Dotini]

Okay, I know what the score is. I will knuckle under to the threats.

 

[Famine]

Doing what?

I will knuckle under to the threats.

There are no threats. Just an expectation that you stop attempting to deceive by deliberately misinterpreting a word with another that you know means the opposite.

Will you deny my right to speak on this forum

You have no such right - look up the agreement you signed to access this private location.

You are not stupid, so stop acting it. This is an end to it - unless you wish to continue by PM.

 

[Scaff]

Will you deny my right to speak on this forum if I do not hew to your particular, unorthodox definition for free speech?

You don't have a right to speak on this forum, no one bar the site owner does.

That is true, but there are some things that you know will insult people and you do it on purpose, would it not be better if we just avoided that part?

And just as many things that I can have no idea will cause insult.

As an example, some people simply can't take a joke. So if I refer to gods as imaginary many monotheists will take that as an insult, even if I have not been specific about which god. Which is utterly nonsensical as being a monotheist they hold the exact same position about every other god but the one they pick.

I've even had a number of Christian take offence and insult when I stated that the god they follow is the exact same one as the one Jews and Muslims follow. Now to avoid causing insult and offence in that case I would have to lie.

 

[ECGadget]

I believe what @Famine is trying to point out is the essense of "Freedom Of Speech", stripped of all laws and regulation.
On the other hand @Dotini is referring to the same "Freedom Of Speech" but within the limits of American law, which in the purest form can no longer be regarded as Freedom of Speech as Famine points out. Nevertheless, the laws are there for a reason and may or may not be fair. In essense, a human has the right to say anything he wants regardless of topic, time or place. This is true "Freedom of Speech".
The one that we are all accustomed to though is the one where there are restrictions placed upon it, albeit restrictions most of us would never come up against. Thus our concept of "Freedom of Speech" does not chance, but the essense that @Famine is talking about does.

Of course I could be hopelessly wrong xD

 

[Milouse]

Intolerance of anything is by definition not tolerance - even if you're intolerant of intolerance...

Tolerance, as we speak of, is a concept of the quite recent Enlightenment age, and doesn't apply to "anything", but to others beliefs and opinion. Being tolerant doesn't endorse intolerance - like moving doesn't endorse immobility. Immobility is the 0 level of movement, like intolerance is the 0 level of tolerance. We are intolerant by default, we have to make an effort to be tolerant.

Our neighbours in Germany lock up people who say the Holocaust isn't real.

As we do in France.

People have the right to be wrong and make themselves look like utter morons. I want to know if my next door neighbour is a racist and the only way to find out is to let them openly express racism without fear of being put in prison - otherwise they become a closet and bitter racist with entrenched views because it looks like society has different rules for different types of racist.

Or put simply has i usually do, and similarly as you did yourself earlier: "bad" ideas deserve good answers.

When I say "freedom of speech" I mean "freedom of speech", not "local laws governing what counts as acceptable communication".

And you never speak of freedom of movement, but instead of "physical laws governing what counts as doable movement" (excluding moving into someone else, or through a wall)?

 

[GBO Possum]

Welcome to the seventh century, from which point there shall be no progress:-

Flogging of already wounded Saudi blogger delayed so that he can sustain more flogging - The Washington Post

This is not some fringe dwelling extremist radicalized group of people. This is officialdom of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose flag and emblem display devices intended to cause harm to people, and whose motto reads "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God."

 

[Carbonox]

Welcome to the seventh century, from which point there shall be no progress:-

Flogging of already wounded Saudi blogger delayed so that he can sustain more flogging - The Washington Post

This is not some fringe dwelling extremist radicalized group of people. This is officialdom of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whose flag and emblem display devices intended to cause harm to people, and whose motto reads "There is no god but God; Muhammad is the messenger of God."

Humanity evolves, Islam doesn't...

 

[Scaff]

Humanity evolves, Islam doesn't...

What all of it?

Once again a stunning failure to understand that all religions have differing sects and these sects have different interpretations of the texts from moderate and forward thinking to the fundamental and extreme.

Guess you must be basing this on all those Muslims you have spoken to personally again.

Welcome to the seventh century, from which point there shall be no progress:-

Sorry but Islam during the seventh century was actually very open and progressive in comparison to the rest of the world at that time. Accepting of other religions, driving froward advancements in medicine, science, maths, etc.

The radical Islam you are actually referring to (in which I include Saudi) is much more modern, with its roots in the late 18th century (at which point it was tiny and ignored being limited to a small sect in the then poor Saudi region) and only started to grow after the fall of the Ottoman empire (1918) and only took off in any major way after the discovery of oil in Saudi in the 1960's.

 

[PeterJB]

Indeed. Christian Fundamentalism as well is a relatively recent phenomenon, appearing around the end of the 19th century.

 

[Famine]

Tolerance, as we speak of, is a concept of the quite recent Enlightenment age, and doesn't apply to "anything", but to others beliefs and opinion. Being tolerant doesn't endorse intolerance - like moving doesn't endorse immobility. Immobility is the 0 level of movement, like intolerance is the 0 level of tolerance. We are intolerant by default, we have to make an effort to be tolerant.

Okay. That doesn't really change the fact that if you do not tolerate intolerance, you are intolerant...

You cannot call yourself tolerant if you only tolerate beliefs and opinions you agree with - tolerance is the act of putting up with things you don't like...

As we do in France.

Then you do live in a country that puts people in prison for speaking if the state doesn't like what they say...

Or put simply has i usually do, and similarly as you did yourself earlier: "bad" ideas deserve good answers.

And if bad ideas are never expressed, they can't get answers...

And you never speak of freedom of movement, but instead of "physical laws governing what counts as doable movement" (excluding moving into someone else, or through a wall)?

I have no idea what this means or how it pertains to the discussion.

However if you wish to draw an analogy between freedom of speech and freedom of movement, I do not believe that laws should be enacted to restrict people from speaking or moving freely, but they neither have the right to speak as they please or move as they please on private property.

 

[Rich S]

To be honest its better that people can say these things such as behead the infidels as it makes their case worse, if they were not allowed to we'd be preventing them from shooting themselves in the foot.

So.......I agree that people should be able to post their insane beliefs. I see all the time people saying their version of "justice" about various criminals, mainly the angry mob lynching kind but nothing is done because it falls under their rights in my country & I like to see it as it gives me a bit of insight into their character.

 

[Dotini]

Part of the problem appears to be that Muslims are not successfully integrated into Europe, especially those of the 2nd generation.

Accordingly, it would seem to make some sense to immediately give them better housing, education, jobs, services and maybe even protection in law from blasphemy. Perhaps the most dangerous WMD is an unemployed 22 year old.

This NY Times writer blames the elite of Europe for creating the very conditions that give rise to radical extremes in both directions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=0

 

[Carbonox]

Part of the problem appears to be that Muslims are not successfully integrated into Europe, especially those of the 2nd generation.

Accordingly, it would seem to make some sense to immediately give them better housing, education, jobs, services and maybe even protection in law from blasphemy. Perhaps the most dangerous WMD is an unemployed 22 year old.

This NY Times writer blames the elite of Europe for creating the very conditions that give rise to radical extremes in both directions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07douthat.html?_r=0

What does the bolded part mean? Everyone in the world should be protected from outdated blasphemy laws.