Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY?? (Page 6)

9tanki IF-Rockerz

Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 9167

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 2:02am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Druids Senior Member
Druids
Druids

Joined: 22 March 2015
Posts: 351

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 5:13am | IP Logged




AnuMP IF-Rockerz
AnuMP
AnuMP

Joined: 05 April 2014
Posts: 6293

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 5:37am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by AnuMP

@K


But free speech should have no limits unless your free speech harms me physically or my belongings. If you start placing other limits on speech, then something you say will offend someone someplace at sometime.

Did we practice "free speech" when we were kids and at those times when we thought the parents were too damn strict that the curse words almost escaped our mouths? What stopped us then? No one would be physically harmed, isn't that right?

The point is GOVERNMENT should not block it. Neither should anyone physically attack you for it

Besides, protection of the First Amendment is necessary for offensive speech. Inoffensive speech does not need protection.

Can I use offensive speech on this forum without getting reported? Why are posts moderated?

Again, this forum is a private undertaking and based out of India, not the US

As to what other communities would do - please check the image out (Moderator, if you think it is against IF's rules, I will edit the post)

This won the Awards in Visual Arts competition sponsored by the National Endowment for Arts of the US government. While people were outraged, there were no gunmen coming into the Stux Gallery or to the AP office which was selling copies of the photograph on their website.


So, you are OK posting an image that may be offensive to Christians but on a topic about Muhammad, it is interesting that you didn't you post a related image. Why did you chicken out?

Because I am too worried about my own skinLOL . But mostly because I don't want to offend. I posted the Piss Christ image because I AM Christian and thought that should give me a little latitude. The point is, the contest was offensive, so is the image. But the GOVERNMENT should have no business banning or regulating either. And sane people can be offended by it, write strongly worded letters to the New York Times and even go on protest marches, but it DOES NOT give them the right to physically harm people or property


 




 

Of course people should try to be civilized. Of course, there are insane people out there who think they have a right, worse yet, a duty, to maim and kill you because of your speech. Of course the prudent and decent thing to do would be to not provoke the criminally insane

That doesn't mean the GOVERNMENT gets to ban it. Not only that, The government has to PROTECT it, because once you go down the slippery slope of banning offensive speech, then you can ban pretty much any kind of speech, including political speech. 


Edited by AnuMP - 07 May 2015 at 6:27am
K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2015

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 10:43am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

Originally posted by K.Universe.




What limits the freedom of speech and expression relating to blasphemy is LAW. What keeps the relationship between organized religion and the nation at a distance is separation of church and state. So the "most potent weapon" against tyranny that you are speaking of is not mockery; it is enacting LAWS. It is banning blasphemy. It is separating religion and state.

Whose laws? What if the lawmakers and law enforcers are themselves party to an oppressive system?





You are losing your train of thought here.

You said that the change has to come from outside. I said that it has to come from within. Towards that end, I pointed out that a meaningful change can only happen if laws are amended and that can happen only from within. The people of those countries need to work on that. The ones outside (like Pamela Geller) aren't going to effect that change through organizing silly cartoon contests. The burden/onus of change falls on the citizens of a country. I am not sure what is so complex here that one can't follow?

In any case, this debate is not about how to "uplift" or "democratize" those nations.Matter of fact, America did try to "democratize" a few nations but other than a bad name and a bruised lip, it got nothing in return.


Originally posted by Rehanism

I didn't speak of laws at all. I spoke about change in mindset of common people.



Laws are what keep the people in check. It doesn't matter how liberal I am or how progressive I am, if I live in Saudi, I still have to abide by their rules or risk getting stoned. So, to reiterate my point, laws need to change for a country to become a progressive nation. And that can only happen if people of that country take it upon themselves to effect that change (either by a rebellion and/or with the help of powerful allies)

Coming back to the debate, can you prove that these cartoon drawing contests have any tangible value? Simple question. Unless you are a world renowned psychologist, please don't answer in terms of what wonders these contests do to the psyche of a population.



K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2015

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 10:54am | IP Logged
Originally posted by AnuMP



The point is GOVERNMENT should not block it. Neither should anyone physically attack you for it



The point is, once you deliberately offend, especially a large group of followers of a faith, the ones who are offended, may feel well within their rights to act on their rage, "laws" be damned. You may condemn the attack(s) but that is a moot point.

And worse off, scum like Andres Serrano or Pamela Geller, while "brave" enough to do what they please, including desecration of something that is near and dear to a lot of people, aren't so brave to face the music. They go into hiding, take police protection (a waste of our tax money by the way) and in general let innocents like the security personnel take the fall.


Edited by K.Universe. - 07 May 2015 at 10:54am

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

_Darling_

AnuMP IF-Rockerz
AnuMP
AnuMP

Joined: 05 April 2014
Posts: 6293

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 11:09am | IP Logged
Let me illustrate with an example then.
Once there is legislation against 'hate' speech what is to stop anyone from branding anything they don't approve of, as hate speech?

If someone then crictizes Jewish practice of curcumcisoon, does that become hate speech as well? Or mocks them for avoiding pork? 

Isn't that what happened to an established author like Rushdie? He was already a well known name and had no reason to use offensive marketing to sell his books. I happen to think those were his opinions. The state sponsored terrorists did go after him, and he perhaps should have known that. But does that make it OK for the government to forbid him from expressing his opinions?

It's a slippery slope.
K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2015

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 11:22am | IP Logged
Originally posted by AnuMP

Let me illustrate with an example then.
Once there is legislation against 'hate' speech what is to stop anyone from branding anything they don't approve of, as hate speech?

If someone then crictizes Jewish practice of curcumcisoon, does that become hate speech as well? Or mocks them for avoiding pork? 

Isn't that what happened to an established author like Rushdie? He was already a well known name and had no reason to use offensive marketing to sell his books. I happen to think those were his opinions. The state sponsored terrorists did go after him, and he perhaps should have known that. But does that make it OK for the government to forbid him from expressing his opinions?

It's a slippery slope.



Stop saying slipper slope a million times. You are the one bringing up extraneous cases and you are the one crying foul.

There are gradations in offense. We need to visit criminal law for that. There are fatal offenses, personal offenses, property offenses, participatory offenses...

It is for the courts / judiciary to draw up the laws. Why are we even talking about what punishment justifies what offense?




Druids Senior Member
Druids
Druids

Joined: 22 March 2015
Posts: 351

Posted: 07 May 2015 at 12:48pm | IP Logged
Criticising Jewish people IS an offence.

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
~Debate Mansion~ |BANNER CONTEST| *Closed*

2

Author: -Koeli_Appy-   Replies: 11   Views: 1274

-Koeli_Appy- 11 1274 25 April 2014 at 12:53am by -Koeli_Appy-
New Bill passed..in 15 minutes..that murderers can contest election

Author: enigmatic_zephy   Replies: 0   Views: 373

enigmatic_zephy 0 373 06 September 2013 at 11:14am by enigmatic_zephy
Creative Writing Contest: Official Entries

2

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 13   Views: 3557

return_to_hades 13 3557 16 July 2010 at 11:57pm by return_to_hades
Creative Writing Contest

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 23 24

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 189   Views: 13187

return_to_hades 189 13187 03 July 2010 at 10:33am by jettythegod
Miracle of Prophet Muhammad (SAW)

Author: Anarchist   Replies: 1   Views: 682

Anarchist 1 682 01 July 2009 at 5:02pm by return_to_hades

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index