Debate Mansion

Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY?? - Page 4

K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 8 years ago
This content was 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?


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?

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?


 




Created

Last reply

Replies

154

Views

11921

Users

21

Likes

109

Frequent Posters

Rehanism thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
This content was 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?

There are anti-blasphemy laws in 32 countries most of which are Muslim-majority nations, such as those in the Middle East and North Africa. Is it absurd to think that they are not "subjected" to what is going on in the developed nations, what kind of laws are enacted and how the "church" keeps its distance from the state. It's not like they are cut-off from the rest of the world. So the suggestion to subject them to mockery is farcical.

87 nations have hate speech laws that covered defamation of religion and public expression of hate against a religious group. Even in those developed nations where there is a ban on blasphemy, there could be penalties or retaliation under blasphemous libel or vilification of religion or hate speech. Now, what constitutes blasphemy in Islam depends on the action, speech or behavior. So, those nations which have banned blasphemy still have to deal with libel.

I suppose you mean 'decriminalized blasphemy' when you say 'banned blasphemy'. Otherwise its confusing.

There's difference between 'hate speech' and blasphemy or 'offensive speech' in context of sentiments. Hate speech is targeted against real living people or group of people and seek to jeopardize their life and liberties. Calling for expulsion of Muslims is hate speech. Mocking Islam or its symbols is not. Provoking violence against people of Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Chinese or North Korean descent or any other ethnicity or creed is hate speech and hate crime. But attacking their social and political ideologies is not. Ideas, traditions and beliefs are not living beings and therefore they need not be immune to criticism, ridicule or attack. I am not against hate speech or defamation laws that secure the social and economic integrity of people but I am against laws that criminalize blasphemy just because it my provoke someone to act violently. That's just blaming the wrong person and infantalising certain communities. Ridiculing historical/mythical figures cannot belong to the category of hate speech at all.

You are assuming that all/most Muslims want to commit blasphemy but are afraid to do so only because of "tyrannical" rule. Some of them (about 3% of the total Muslim population) live in developed countries but are still devout. What these Muhammad cartoon contests are doing is ALSO offending these devout Muslims. What of their feelings? Collateral damage?

I don't know where did I imply that. I only said that the reason Muslims are so bothered by blasphemy because they live in societies or communities where religion rules the roost. They are not used to pluralism of thought and action. That's why they are more outraged than say a devout Christian in Europe or US who is used to his faith being ridiculed by the other side.

I haven't seen evidence to suggest that free speech laws were enacted in developed nations because "regular onslaught of heretics" forced them into free speech. I am sure you have your reasons to believe so.

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

In India, blasphemy is covered under hate speech. So, forget the tyrannical nations, even in India, there is no way people will mess with the law, even assuming they are itching to blaspheme.

The Indian anti-blasphemy laws like 295A or 153 are often claimed to be in place to protect 'public law and order' circumstantially. That is in fact a cowardly admission on the part of our state of its inability to tame the unruly religious elements and defend the democratic rights of the citizens.

Actually there are many who are working hard to get rid of those laws. In democratic nations we can do that. Recently 66A was disposed off. Hopefully someday we will do away with the rest as well.


Lastly, yes, species evolve. Into what is the question. Predators or prey.

Civilized humans I would hope.

souro thumbnail
Anniversary 17 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
I didn't understand what is offensive in that Jesus picture. I only see a crucified guy in yellow against an orange backdrop. Am I missing something? ðŸ˜•
Rehanism thumbnail
Anniversary 13 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
This content was originally posted by: souro

I didn't understand what is offensive in that Jesus picture. I only see a crucified guy in yellow against an orange backdrop. Am I missing something? ðŸ˜•


Dipped in urine.
Posted: 8 years ago
This content was originally posted by: souro

I didn't understand what is offensive in that Jesus picture. I only see a crucified guy in yellow against an orange backdrop. Am I missing something? ðŸ˜•

Its Piss Christ photograph by Andres Serano, he submerged plastic crucifix in a glass of his own urine
souro thumbnail
Anniversary 17 Thumbnail Group Promotion 5 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
I know I won't be amused, if a guy wants to draw my cartoon with the sole objective of making fun of me or insulting me. I'll consider such behaviour, especially when done repeatedly, as bullying. I certainly can't expect other people to tolerate what I myself in all probability will find offensive, if done to me.

But does that warrant me physically attacking the cartoonist. Maybe not. Depends on the law. If the law permits, I'll certainly would like to show the cartoonist how funny I find it to kick his rear side. But if the law doesn't permit it, I'd most probably just register a case against the cartoonist and depend on law enforcement to stop such behaviour.

The next question is, whose law should be followed? The country in which the cartoonist is drawing the cartoon? Or the country/ countries whose population is being made fun of? The West expects all other nations to follow their code of law, as long as the cartoonist is residing on their soil. Similarly, the Muslim nations want the cartoonists to follow their code of law, when drawing something about them. Neither is wrong IMO.

Btw, I think one should be responsible when exercising free speech. It's not about the fear of consequences, but general courtesy. If Mr. X is a deaf, mute, blind, armless, legless person, doesn't mean I get a free pass to make cartoons mocking him, just because I know he can't get up and punch my face in.
Edited by souro - 8 years ago
K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 8 years ago


Ban on blasphemy as in there are no laws that deal with blasphemy as in invalidated laws against blasphemy. as in not recognize blasphemy as an offense as in no one will even be prosecuted for blasphemy as in don't even bring such cases to the attention of the court.

Which is why people are getting creative and masking blasphemy as "hate speech" and suing for slander.


K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 8 years ago
Oh, now I see where the confusion lies. It is ban on blasphemy laws. I thought that was understood, given the context was laws.
Angel-likeDevil thumbnail
Anniversary 14 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
I think in this world people live with their head in the clouds. Agreed. The shooting was totally atrocious.

But please, go by realities. There are unreasonably sensitive people out their. Are you going to lose something if you don't draw something? People speak about "freedom of this n that" ..well, why don't they respect their fellow humans who're too sensitive. Understanding your fellow humans and being a little wise wouldn't hurt. When you can speak about such high things like "freedom of this and that" ..is it difficult to understand small thing like hurting sentiments?
And organising a CONTEST to draw pictures of Mohd? Really? Epitome of foolishness

People these days behave like they'd die without freedom of speech and expression. Reminds me of Einstein's quote, "Two things are infinite : Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe"Edited by Angel-likeDevil - 8 years ago
-Believe- thumbnail
Anniversary 18 Thumbnail Group Promotion 7 Thumbnail + 2
Posted: 8 years ago
'You want her to die!' Muslim hate preacher and extreme anti-Islam 'Draw Muhammad' activist face off in dramatic Fox confrontation 
http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/05/06/39868/fnc-hannity-20150506-geller-retry

The right-wing blogger who organized the 'Draw Muhammad' event that was targeted by two gunmen at the weekend has had a fierce TV confrontation with a hate preacher, who thinks she should receive capital punishment.

Extreme anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller argued with British-based cleric Anjem Choudary during Fox News' Hannity on Wednesday night,  just days after Elton Simpson, 31 and Nadir Soofi, 34, tried to storm the controversial cartoon event in Garland, Texas.

Geller, 56, who has received death threats since the anti-Islamic exhibition, began by claiming President Obama has 'created an environment that raised the stakes' on terror in the United States



Pamela Geller argued with British-based cleric Anjem Choudary during Fox News' Hannity on Wednesday night, just days after Elton Simpson, 31 and Nadir Soofi, 34, attacked the controversial cartoon event in Garland, Texas
  • SHARE PICTURE
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
+5

Pamela Geller argued with British-based cleric Anjem Choudary during Fox News' Hannity on Wednesday night, just days after Elton Simpson, 31 and Nadir Soofi, 34, attacked the controversial cartoon event in Garland, Texas



Host Sean Hannity then reminds his viewers what Choudary believes in - which is imposing Sharia law across all countries, including America. 

The controversial imam then says: 'Let's be clear we are not talking about Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. We are talking about people who deliberately had a competition to insult the messenger Muhammad.

'If you saw the cartoons that Charlie Hebdo drew, you would understand the anger.'

Rabble rouser Choudary, who once said 'the flag of Islam will fly over the White House', then goes on to talk about how Geller was fully aware that many Muslims consider blasphemy a crime that is worthy of the death penalty.



Host Sean Hannuity then shouts: 'You want her to die!'  

To which Choudary replies: 'She should be put before a Sharia court and tried and, if guilty, face capital punishment.'

Geller says: 'To blame me and say that my cartoons are controversial... murdering cartoonists is controversial.'

The head of the American Freedom Defense Initiative then tries to get Choudary to stop interrupting her, and at one point says: 'I know you're used to stepping over women.'

Choudary then says Geller is worse than a 'Khanzier'- Arabic for pig - and starts ranting about Americans murdering innocent people, prompting Hannity to intervene. 

He ends the conversation by saying the cleric is 'evil and pathetic.' 


The Southern Poverty Law Center, who have designated Geller's AFDI a hate group, condemned the appearance of the pair in an email to the Media Matters blog.

Heidi Beirich, the director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project, wrote: 'We're disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that Sean Hannity would offer a national platform to two well-known haters. Ms. Geller and Mr. Choudary represent nothing more than an extreme political fringe. 

'Their divisive behavior is made even worse by the fact that Ms. Geller is now positioning herself to be a defender of free speech, while Mr. Choudary is purporting to speak on behalf of all Muslims.' 

ISIS quickly moved to claim the attack as its own and has now issued a terrifying death threat aimed at Geller, as well as claiming to have 71 'trained soldiers' operating within America. 

Geller has since expanded her security team in the wake of the death threat she received after the attack and has been in contact with the NYPD's counter-terrorism unit. 

It extended the warning to anyone who dared host her events or give her a platform to 'spill her filth'. The message claimed this would make them 'legitimate targets'.

A message posted online read that the weekend's attack was only the beginning of ISIS' 'efforts to establish a wilayah [province] in the heart of our enemy'.

It went on: 'Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don't care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter.' 

NYPD spokesman Stephen Davis says the threat named Geller specifically. He says investigators from counterterrorism and intelligence bureaus met with her Wednesday and will do a 'comprehensive threat assessment' to decide whether it's credible enough to require security for Geller. 


Geller has hinted that she held the event in response to killings in Paris over the public depiction of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, whom Islam dictates must never be drawn or painted. 

Through websites, books, ad campaigns and public events, Geller has been warning for years about the 'Islamic machine' that she says threatens to destroy the U.S.

She famously led the campaign in 2010 " under a different group, called Stop the Islamization of America " to prevent the opening of an Islamic community center blocks from the World Trade Center site. She called it the 'ground zero mosque.'

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that tracks hate groups, keeps a dossier on her in its 'extremist files,' calling her 'the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead.'

The law center describes her as 'relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam' and notes some of her more sensational claims, including that President Barack Obama is the 'love child' of Malcolm X. 

'I don't think that many Westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day,' she was quoted as telling The New York Times in 2010. She also said: 'I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam.'

The weekend contest in Garland, Texas, was offering $10,000 for the best cartoon of Muhammad. 

Choudary is current;y on bail in the UK for allegedly being a member of a banned terrorist group. He founded the organization Al-Muhajiroun 20 years ago and is seen as a recruiting sergeant for Britain's radical Muslims. 

He has previously called Americans 'the biggest criminals in the world today.'

He hit U.S. headlines in 2011 after a furious exchange with Hannity on Fox News. The presenter became so enraged with his anti-American comments he ended the interview by calling him a 'sick, miserable, evil S.O.B'.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/