Free speech vs. religious ideals, current events in question. Options

[jayi12-15psi]

well, now that I look at it, this conversation has many sides, I tried to stay impartial to begin with but I suck at not speaking my piece.

[97lestyousay]

this forum is not for these kinds of discussions, it only leads to chaos

Agreed!!

[jayi12-15psi]

I know it's taboo, but I think it's ok as long as we don't start making attacks on religion or political agenda.

Let's just keep it reasonable, we're all adults and we should be able to have inteligent conversation on such matters. If not, lock it, no big deal.

[presure2]

as long as you guys can DEBATE the topic, without it turning into a pissing war, it'll stay open

[Supersprynt]

Well, I hope it dosen't get deleted. I think things like this are important, it's very relative with alot of things going on with our civil rights such as the recent wire tapping and patriot acts. At what point should a government deny civil rights because they cause more harm than good? I can clearly understand the offenses in those cartoons, but it's a difficult task finding the perfect balance. I hope this topic stays open, I wasn't looking to start something to offend religions. Personally, I think ultra-liberals sometimes lose sight of the fact that certain rights shouldn't be abused, and to push the envelope sometimes causes things as severe as death.

I think you kinda have it backwards. The liberals are the ones fighting for your liberties more than anybody else.

[Bigmeanbulldog55]

I think you kinda have it backwards. The liberals are the ones fighting for your liberties more than anybody else.

lol, that's what they want you to think. I'm very anti-American at this point in my life. Any remember "Animal Farm?" Whose to say the only time something like that would happen is when it's a Communist system? It just takes longer for Napolian and Snowball to take power. Communism is the greatest thing in the world in theory. But like all systems of government, it has it's flaws. Like the wicked coming to power and controlling. You have to give America credit for making it as long as it has.

This post has been edited by Bigmeanbulldog55: Feb 9, 2006 - 9:49 AM

[Supersprynt]

Communism fails because its very anti-human.

[jayi12-15psi]

I think you kinda have it backwards. The liberals are the ones fighting for your liberties more than anybody else.

No, I fully understand that the liberals fight for our liberties, but what I'm asking is, at what point do we have more liberties than our society can handle? Freedom of speech is great unless you're walking up to random people on the street and telling them "your baby was just run over by a dump truck."(if it's a lie) Freedom of speech is great until a simple cartoon is enough to cause death.

This post has been edited by jayi12-15psi: Feb 9, 2006 - 12:13 PM

[Supersprynt]

There are people who take it a little to literally. During WWI & II you really couldnt speak out against the government and protest to stop drafting and joining the army. And I agree that its pretty horrible that there are people who would say stuff like that. But there also comes a point in time where anything anybody says its going to offend someone, and the fact of the matter is that people gotta get over it. If you sit and get offended by such things as a cartoon, then you really need to open a window and chill out. Its a fuggin cartoon - its the whole society over there that takes religion way to seriously and to the extreme. IMO religion is a FAR worse culprit of causing deaths than free speech.

[jayi12-15psi]

I agree with you about religion being a worse culprit than freedom of speech when it comes to death. Is it worth doing something as extreme as possibly going to war with the muslim community because they can't take a joke?

If we draw Muhammed, they attack, we retaliate it becomes war.

Granted they shouldn't resort to violence everytime they're offended, but we have so few ways to deal with the situation if they start using violence. We know muslim extremist react with violence, should we simply try to not offend in the first place? I understand offending someone is inevitable this day in age, but maybe conflict could be avoided by being a little more PC(even though I hate being PC)?

[ILuvMyCelica95]

I think you kinda have it backwards. The liberals are the ones fighting for your liberties more than anybody else.

No, I fully understand that the liberals fight for our liberties, but what I'm asking is, at what point do we have more liberties than our society can handle? Freedom of speech is great unless you're walking up to random people on the street and telling them "your baby was just run over by a dump truck."(if it's a lie) Freedom of speech is great until a simple cartoon is enough to cause death.

I think people are misunderstanding what exactly “freedom of speech” is. Freedom of speech does not mean you can go around misrepresenting the truth. A democratic form of government cannot survive unless people can freely voice their political opinions and criticize government actions or polices.
Of course there are restrictions on you’re freedom of speech, for example the burning of a U.S. Flag is not protected by the first amendment, even though it has been argued that doing so is a freedom of expression. The government has to be able to place restraints on people’s freedom of speech but only when they are necessary to protect other substantial interest and rights. This is why we have courts to determine the point at which laws restricting free speech can be justified by the need to protect other rights.
Consequentially if someone were to run around saying untrue things like "your baby was just run over by a dump truck." And this statement caused some type of harm to the other party For example ( and yeah I’m exaggerating a bit on the consequences here.) The mother of the baby then commits suicide. The father/husband of the victims here could sue the person who misrepresented the truth, if this person had knowledge that the statement was in fact untrue, and used it with malicious intent, this could probably fall under the tort of intentional infliction of emotion distress, if you stretch if far enough, blah blah blah.

Yes I went of on a tangent here but I think it’s important that people understand what freedom of speech means.

Cliff notes: not all things are protected under freedom of speech.

[jayi12-15psi]

right, I realize that but is it possible that the danish people should be restricted from publishing cartoons that bash a culture? It is a liberal nation, but that doesn't mean they can be **** distubers.

Sorry, I was not clear on the fact that saying things such as "your baby was run over by a dump truck" is illegal. I was trying to make the point that if something like that is illegal, maybe it should be illegal to make culturally bashing cartoons that cause violence?

This post has been edited by jayi12-15psi: Feb 9, 2006 - 2:00 PM

[ILuvMyCelica95]

I know what you're saying Jay. The problem is that ( well at least in America) Freedom of speech for the media and corporations is different then freedom of speach for the everyday man.

In this case because these cartoon are clearly offensive material they probably should not be protected under the right of freedom of speechin the opinion of the people it is offending, on the other hand, This is something in the media, people also have the right to pay no attention to it, no one is forcing people to view these cartoons.

For example: Even in the US numerous state and federal statues make it a crime to disseminate obsecene materials, however, the Supreme Court has often uphelf such laws, including laws prohibiting the sale and posession of child ponography. I find that offensive, as do most people, and IMO it should not be leagal,but that is only my opinion and i chose not to buy said obscene materials which is also my choice.

Determining what is protected under freedom of speech and what isn't is treading on thin ice.

controversial issue this is.

This post has been edited by ILuvMyCelica95: Feb 9, 2006 - 2:01 PM

[jayi12-15psi]

I'm not sure what publication these cartoons are printed in, but lets say you opened up a copy of the daily paper and something in their cartoons offended you? You most likely would not resort to violence, but you'd be upset non the less.

I know it's a controversial issue, that's why I'm asking it. What do you guys think should be protected under free speech and what should not be protected? Should the United States interfere in this instance?

[ILuvMyCelica95]

I don't think the US should interfere at all.

[LuDaChRiS]

good taste and respect should rule over all

[jayi12-15psi]

Do you find the fact that they are burning our flag offensive? I'm not an evil right-wing anti liberal, but I do find that very offensive as I'm not some peace loving, no-war-at-any-cost hippie. Perhaps I find it as offensive as they find the cartoons, but I'm not about to shed blood.
I do however think these extremists can't just **** all over America's name.

I'm having my cake and eating it too.

I think the world is getting sick of the conflicts in the middle-east, but they're also getting tired of our antics.

[ILuvMyCelica95]

good taste and respect should rule over all

Good taste and respect according to who?

Like i think my car is done in good taste according to me, but you might think it's hideous. everyone is entitled to their own opinion. These people just happened to show it through a cartoon.

This post has been edited by ILuvMyCelica95: Feb 9, 2006 - 2:27 PM

[BlackCelicaGT94]

They are just using it as a reason to start more violoence. I dont think its so much the cartoon as it is EVERYTHING thats going on over there.

[jayi12-15psi]

good taste and respect should rule over all

When I find a way to make this a universally applied ideal, I will rule supreme.