|
11548. vonKreedon - 5/5/2015 5:22:05 PM It's an interesting conversation on the left regarding the right to expression and the rights of the marginalized. I'm with I3B3, the left should be on the side of freedom of expression irregardless of the cultural impact of the expression. Yes, the cartoon contest is specifically designed to insult and provoke, but that's the nature of such expression, see Piss Christ or Holy Virgin Mary or Guernica, in fact that such expression results in such violent attempt to repress it means, IMO, that there's a need for more such expression, not less.
11549. judithathome - 5/5/2015 6:17:36 PM Fine...you guys are right and if those two fools had entered with guns blazing or driven a truck loaded with bombs into the venue and killed 2,000 people...or say, flown an airliner into the venue to make a point...we'd just say, "Oh well, at least freedom of expression is protected."
And on the anniversaries of the day the plane flew into the venue, we'd smile at one another and say "At least freedom of expression is okay."
Or maybe we should have just sent someone into the crowded venue yelling FIRE...
I guess you guys think it's hunky-dory for Westboro Baptist Church to picket soldiers funerals, too...lovely. 11550. alistairconnor - 5/5/2015 7:09:42 PM Well, the Garland business is a tough one for me. Not because I think displays of "Muhammad cartoons" should necessarily be banned, obviously... But the keynote speaker was Geert Wilders, Dutch far-right politician and notorious islamophobe. This tells me all I need to know about this "art show".
Free speech, sure. But intent counts. There have to be limits. Incitement to religious hatred for its own sake is off limits for me.
(And if you say "But Charlie Hebdo", I am happy to explain in detail why it's different.)
11551. judithathome - 5/5/2015 7:27:02 PM Well, I fault the people in charge of the venue for not recognizing that this might be an incendiary event...had they looked the lady up on the internet, they'd have seen what she was all about and maybe decided "Hey, this could get dicey...we'll pass."
People still have the right to disagree with those who want to spew hate, right? Or do we have to shelve that in order to insure THEIR rights are not abused? 11552. iiibbb - 5/5/2015 8:37:43 PM Free speech trumps violent response.... I don't care how hateful it is or what anyone says. I'd rather have them say it so it can be openly ignored or publicly mocked.
Having grown up in the South... I much prefer open hate speech over an environment where bigots know to bide their tongues. It makes it easy for me to decide who not to spend time on. 11553. judithathome - 5/5/2015 9:55:54 PM Fine...then I guess you think the attacks on the Twin Towers were okay...because that was an expression of their "free speech". 11554. judithathome - 5/5/2015 10:33:25 PM And according to ISIS, this attack was an expression of THEIR freedom of expression...so now we're supposed to support THAT, too?
Personally, I don't believe that...I think they are just jumping on this pathetic event to claim THEY did it...however, if we here in this country support free speech over all else, we have to say they have that right. 11555. iiibbb - 5/6/2015 12:34:09 AM Obviously I am talking about speech / press... Not violent acts. 11556. vonKreedon - 5/6/2015 5:34:54 PM Judith - There is an obvious difference between free expression by racist assholes through a cartoon contest and religious fanatics crashing hijacked planes into buildings. That you are tempted to conflate the two illustrates the weakness of the anti-expression argument.
11557. judithathome - 5/6/2015 5:52:53 PM Well, pardon me. I didn't do well in "debate" in school.
I have seen people make the same argument, though...people who did do well.
Would I be better on firmer ground had those guys in Garland killed a few hundred people while "freely expressing themselves?" 11558. judithathome - 5/6/2015 5:54:20 PM Scratch "better" up there...see, I can't even type things correctly! ;-) 11559. Trillium - 5/6/2015 6:15:53 PM Judith, Garland was chosen for the Free Speech event of Geller's organization because recently Garland hosted a Muslim event at the same venue.
Geller's group took precautions of hiring and paying for their own security. Did the Muslim group have to do the same, or did they rely strictly on Garland public police? Wondering if you know, because I'm curious 11560. Trillium - 5/6/2015 6:25:47 PM Islam opposes abortion and gay rights, alcohol and pork.
In 10 years, after Islam has grown dramatically (at rates similar to the FLDS cult through polygamy, and also through immigration) will you also oppose incendiary gay rights parades?
As scary as this had to be for Garland and the surrounding area, there is a bigger issue that has to be faced sooner or later -- what are the limits and boundaries of free speech and religiously-defined behavior? If you are willing to cave to whatever group is most violent, a lot is going to go, down the road 11561. Trillium - 5/6/2015 6:27:14 PM Islam is also not keen on dogs 11562. arkymalarky - 5/6/2015 6:27:33 PM regarding the strict issue of free speech I agree with 3i, but I'm curious: when the Muslims had that meeting were they drawing ugly pictures of Jesus? 11563. judithathome - 5/6/2015 7:48:18 PM Obviously, I guess I have "misunderstood" the issue...just WHICH freedom of expression is NOT okay in this country? Are ALL religions free to express themselves or just some of them?
If this exhibit had been staged by one of Satan's followers, would it be safe from Christian protestors?
Does that cover doctors who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion? Because I seem to recall some Christians weren't that crazy about doctors who supported THAT freedom of expression...and they murdered the doctors who did.
11564. Trillium - 5/6/2015 7:54:54 PM There is a trade agreement in the works that is mysterious, no one seems to know much about it except that there will not be labor protections.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Trans-Pacific-trade-pact-Obama-Democrats/2015/05/04/id/642370/
"...Sherman, who explained that he opposes what he has seen thus far "because it lacks labor standards and measures to address currency manipulation."
..."This far-reaching free trade agreement amongst 12 nations in the Americas, Oceania, and East Asia, is expected to yield significant results," Schoen writes. "It will bolster the economy and support innovation, create jobs, and increase national security."
It is hard to get information about this, so I have no idea what my opinion is... except that I don't like the lack of public debate 11565. iiibbb - 5/6/2015 8:11:04 PM Message # 11563 I don't care if the "Christians" in question are hypocrites.
I care that the mechanism of free speech in this country is maintained.
My position is that as long as you're not hurting someone you can say whatever you want. The obvious exception to that is the "Fire" in a theater exception. Now... is drawing a cartoon the same as yelling "Fire" in a theater... only if you actually believe that Muslims as a rule are reactionary zealots.
If we limit speech/expression based on the worst conceivable outcomes... no one could speak. 11566. iiibbb - 5/6/2015 8:12:41 PM "Does that cover doctors who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion? Because I seem to recall some Christians weren't that crazy about doctors who supported THAT freedom of expression...and they murdered the doctors who did. "
So you are arguing that we shouldn't speak in the defense of women's rights to abortions because Christian zealots might murder doctors? 11567. Trillium - 5/6/2015 8:16:00 PM Judith, are you aware of the Molly Norris controversy? AFAIK Norris is still in hiding. She was from Seattle, and proposed a "Draw Mohamed Day" back around 2010.
Molly Norris
Wiki Molly Norris
If a bunch of Scientologists had come after South Park cartoonists to murder them? Would the cartoonists have been at fault for incitement of "Fair Game" beliefs?
|
