I have never understood the reasoning that if you criticize what someone says that you are somehow crapping on the first Admendment. This might be a bit simplistic, but isn't the criticism also protected by the first Admendment? Why should someone have to surrender their first Admendment rights just because they have been elected or appointed to office? I have never thought that the first Admendment implied that anyone is free from criticism. Seems like if you argue that you are somehow free from criticism or even consequence from your words, that you have a delusional idea of what freedom of speech is...you had the freedom if you were allowed to say it, it wasnt censored...but don't expect your words to be ignored or not criticized.
I have never understood the reasoning that if you criticize what someone says that you are somehow crapping on the first Admendment. This might be a bit simplistic, but isn't the criticism also protected by the first Admendment? Why should someone have to surrender their first Admendment rights just because they have been elected or appointed to office? I have never thought that the first Admendment implied that anyone is free from criticism. Seems like if you argue that you are somehow free from criticism or even consequence from your words, that you have a delusional idea of what freedom of speech is...you had the freedom if you were allowed to say it, it wasnt censored...but don't expect your words to be ignored or not criticized.
The point I see being made is; when government officials, top government officials, attack a person's expression it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
We are talking about speech out side the political sphere.
So if the president attacks a hip hop song for being violent, a video game for being graphic, an art exhibit for being blasphemes or a movie for being pornographic or anti-Islamic, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
The government should be encouraging freedom of speech, not discouraging it.
That is the argument and I am just about convinced.
I have never understood the reasoning that if you criticize what someone says that you are somehow crapping on the first Admendment. This might be a bit simplistic, but isn't the criticism also protected by the first Admendment? Why should someone have to surrender their first Admendment rights just because they have been elected or appointed to office? I have never thought that the first Admendment implied that anyone is free from criticism. Seems like if you argue that you are somehow free from criticism or even consequence from your words, that you have a delusional idea of what freedom of speech is...you had the freedom if you were allowed to say it, it wasnt censored...but don't expect your words to be ignored or not criticized.
The point I see being made is; when government officials, top government officials, attack a person's expression it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
We are talking about speech out side the political sphere.
So if the president attacks a hip hop song for being violent, a video game for being graphic, an art exhibit for being blasphemes or a movie for being pornographic or anti-Islamic, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
The government should be encouraging freedom of speech, not discouraging it.
That is the argument and I am just about convinced.
So even though the govt hasnt banned said hip hop record, hasn't yanked said video game off the shelves, hasn't stopped anyone from creating said products nor prevented someone from having a public stage from saying anything regardless how stupid/inflammatory, it is still somehow censorship? Interesting. So the government should in no way simply explain that some dipshit's opinion/worldview is not the view/position of the majority because disagreeing with someone should be verboten and doing so is raping freedom of speech and leaving it in a ditch? Last I checked you can make and sell any video game, make any song, make any movie...so you must then feel the FCC should be banished because you can't show graphic sex and gruesome violence with the word fuck on prime time TV because it is a hindrance to freedom of speech because the government doesn't think those are good ideas?
Chilling effect on free speech, I said. Not Censorship.
As for the rest of what you said, I have not gone there yet.
In fact what I said was; "I am just about convinced".
If you want to convince me otherwise try writing less hysterically and more persuasively.
This is good persuasive writing:
JustAlice said:
I never said anything about the Law but to answer your question from my ethical stand point - In regards to Limbaugh and Obama - Yes. I do not feel as though Gov't Officials should speak against or make judgements upon citizens statements or views on the record. I do not feel the POTUS or SOS should condemn and decry anyone exercising their first amendment rights. To me, that is immoral.
There is no doubt in my mind that the attack in Libya was handled poorly by the White House. They initially announced publicly that the murders were a reaction to the video. We now know it had nothing to do with that. It also raises the question as to whether this assertion might actually have caused MORE violent demonstrations across the Middle East. - Here, Let us provide you with examples to our incompetence.
Hillary Clinton began by commenting on one of the perceived effects of our freedom of speech. This was entirely hypothetical and unproven as fact. The White House reaction was a rush to judgement. The proper response by Govt. Officials would be to regret the loss of life and bring those responsible to justice. Understanding the validity of the situation as a whole was just as important as Unheard's findings that she was "just trying to calm down the situation". Crucify first ask questions later? Fuck it!
So she didn't come out and say "we are sorry" in so many words but guilty before proven innocent? Also in Your Words: "a inflammatory video made solely with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world" This statement has no baring to truth. It is strictly your opinion. The assertion that I am immoral or unethical for pointing out difference between fact and assumption is ridiculous. Cross Burning on someone else's property = Crime. Cheesy Video = Cheesy Video.
Hillary Clinton was petting the Hurt Feelings of Muslims and making excuses for our right to free speech. Pussy Riot also incited massive Protests, public outcry, Kickstarter campaigns and even official statements from Admin. The only real difference besides perceived good and evil is... against the law ( Russia ) and perfectly legal ( USA ). So yes, the legality is of great importance to me.
My point is that for the same reason a Pussy Riot would likely not happen here in the near future (gratefully), breaking the code on the 'Innocence of Muslims' is slowly beginning to pull the door closed on Say what you will / Be careful what you say / Say nothing at all.
Our rights provide us the Freedom FROM being persecuted for it. Who determines what is acceptable to say? And where do we press blame for violence? Is it Ice Cube? Or Marilyn Manson? Batman perhaps? The Speaker or assumed motive of the speaker is not the person committing the crimes, at least currently in these situations.
The assault of Free Speech is immanently more dangerous in the name of Political Correctness and Opportunism. It does not trump First Amendment Rights. This is especially true when our public officials, speaking as representatives of our people and our freedoms, denounce and decry the reactions TO our freedoms. We should not be playing Truth or Dare with our liberty.
so in a world where a group of people who are willing to kill for a religion, a world where all religion is merely a choice, that perhaps explaining to those people that an entire nation doesn't feel that way, an entire nation wasn't throwing rocks at your hornet's nest, an entire nation isn't that ignorant nor stupid is a terrible thing and the good thing to do is to explain to the people who want to kill in the name of religion is to not explain this to them but to basically say we celebrate this, we feel our religious nuts are better and have more of a moral ground for their hatred because we allow it?
so in a world where a group of people who are willing to kill for a religion, a world where religion is part of ones culture, perhaps explaining to those people that an entire nation believes that Freedom of Speech is more important than hurt feelings, an entire nation wasn't throwing rocks but one person expressed their opinion, and they have a right to do that, an entire nation fully supports their right to make a stupid and terrible movie, the good thing to do is to explain to the people who want to kill to stop free expression is to explain to them that free expression is as important to us as religion is to them.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Hell the daily White House press briefing is chock full of critiques. Why do you think they call the presidency "The Bully Pulpit?"
What do you think the members of the House and Senate are doing with their press availability?
Our government and its employees have every right to state their position (right or wrong) on anything you say. What they cannot do is abridge your rights to say it. There is the rub.
Its one thing to publicly condemn someone or something, it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish to actively suppress someone or something.
Besides, I want to hear condemnation directly from our government, rather than from proxies working on their behalf.
You can strike Susan Rice from the list I potential replacements for Hillary Clinton as Sec. Of State if Pres. Obama wins a second term in the White House. The U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations undercut her chances when she said...prematurely...that terrorism wasn't behind the deadly U.S. Embassy attack in Libya.
Let me put it this way...I work with kids with behavioral and psychological problems...kids who act irrationally, kids who act out violently to situations that rational people would find absurd to get worked up over. Most of the time these kids are abused. I find them very similar to hard line religious types who want to kill because someone said their prophet/leader/icon is stupid. Do you think that dealing with the kids I deal with instinctively understand that what they are doing is irrational and that other's don't feel the same way? Do you think a "tough shit, you need to act this certain way... a hard line compliance attitude, my way or the highway type of reasoning works with them? No. I don't think we can put all people in the same camp and think that just because WE feel that rights like this should be absolute that everyone in the world feels the same way. I find it kind of foolish to think that the argument "we are America and we say so" should be our only foreign policy tactic. Are we correct in thinking that freedom of speech should be absolute, I do...but at the same time, I not myopic in my thinking that we need to pat everyone on the back and say "way to use your first amendment rights in offending these people." We cannot let the rights we have in this country drive our primary reactions of what happens outside our country. We are not dealing with Americans when we deal with people from different nations, nations that are theocratic, we are dealing with people that think differently than us, so we must adjust our reactions depending on who is reacting. Just like the kid who decides to hit an adult and trash a classroom because they don't want to do their math, you can't simply say "don't go that because it isn't right" because that is not going to prevent another outburst. Religious extremists are irrational, psychologically damaged people and we should treat them as such. If that means pointing out something is full of shit to start a dialogue, then do be it.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
LaserWolf said:
The_Hook_Up said:
I have never understood the reasoning that if you criticize what someone says that you are somehow crapping on the first Admendment. This might be a bit simplistic, but isn't the criticism also protected by the first Admendment? Why should someone have to surrender their first Admendment rights just because they have been elected or appointed to office? I have never thought that the first Admendment implied that anyone is free from criticism. Seems like if you argue that you are somehow free from criticism or even consequence from your words, that you have a delusional idea of what freedom of speech is...you had the freedom if you were allowed to say it, it wasnt censored...but don't expect your words to be ignored or not criticized.
The point I see being made is; when government officials, top government officials, attack a person's expression it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
We are talking about speech out side the political sphere.
So if the president attacks a hip hop song for being violent, a video game for being graphic, an art exhibit for being blasphemes or a movie for being pornographic or anti-Islamic, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
The government should be encouraging freedom of speech, not discouraging it.
That is the argument and I am just about convinced.
But they're not discouraging it. Didn't anybody else see the words "for me, personally" in that quote from Hillary? It's hardly "outside the political sphere" either. Anything concerning non-Muslim attitudes to Islam risks having a global impact nowadays, whether justified or not. Don't forget why Hillary was speaking on it in the first place; US diplomatic missions were being attacked precisely because the US government doesn't discourage freedom of speech (at least, not openly). When you have prominent Islamist figures saying things like, "If we'd been allowed to kill Salman Rushdie, that film would never have been made", well...how's that for a "chilling effect"?
As was pointed out upthread, much of the outrage over that movie came from within societies where it is completely unthinkable that such a thing could ever have been made without government approval. That's the difference between freedom of expression in a liberal democracy and whatever the equivalent happens to be within a theocracy or dictatorship. I'd personally expect any responsible, intelligent politician to point this out, especially when discussing something which was (imo) so obviously and cravenly intended to provoke racial and religious hatred under the guise of free expression.
Now, back to the Secretary Of State...
"Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today???s world with today???s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."
She never uses the word "censor" at all, by the way. Not even to say, "we do not censor [blahblahyadayada]". Nobody's freedom of speech is being removed, threatened, "chilled" or otherwise impinged upon here. Panic over, people.
Let me put it this way...I work with kids with behavioral and psychological problems...kids who act irrationally, kids who act out violently to situations that rational people would find absurd to get worked up over. Most of the time these kids are abused. I find them very similar to hard line religious types who want to kill because someone said their prophet/leader/icon is stupid. Do you think that dealing with the kids I deal with instinctively understand that what they are doing is irrational and that other's don't feel the same way? Do you think a "tough shit, you need to act this certain way... a hard line compliance attitude, my way or the highway type of reasoning works with them? No. I don't think we can put all people in the same camp and think that just because WE feel that rights like this should be absolute that everyone in the world feels the same way. I find it kind of foolish to think that the argument "we are America and we say so" should be our only foreign policy tactic. Are we correct in thinking that freedom of speech should be absolute, I do...but at the same time, I not myopic in my thinking that we need to pat everyone on the back and say "way to use your first amendment rights in offending these people." We cannot let the rights we have in this country drive our primary reactions of what happens outside our country. We are not dealing with Americans when we deal with people from different nations, nations that are theocratic, we are dealing with people that think differently than us, so we must adjust our reactions depending on who is reacting. Just like the kid who decides to hit an adult and trash a classroom because they don't want to do their math, you can't simply say "don't go that because it isn't right" because that is not going to prevent another outburst. Religious extremists are irrational, psychologically damaged people and we should treat them as such. If that means pointing out something is full of shit to start a dialogue, then do be it.
The children you deal with (I assume) are locked up or at least isolated from society and for good reason. We don't change the rules and morals of our society so those children you work with can better adapt, they have to change or else be condemned to whatever punishment fits their offenses. Regardless of your culture, murder is unacceptable. Whether you approve of this movie or not, if you are going to blame murders on the film you are in fact blaming our freedom of speech and expression for the deaths of 4 Americans who by all accounts were good people working for the good of the people of Libya. Man up and place the blame where it belongs, on murdering savages who don't deserve our empathy or understanding. Whether real or perception, what most people seem to have heard from the media was more distancing from a film by our government than condemnation of these murders. What kind of dialogue can you expect from what you call "irrational, psychologically damaged people "?
Rock. I had to count to... well a very high number before my blood pressure came down after reading your post.
1) No one is laying 100% blame on the fuck nuts that made "The Passion of the Muslims." Though they knew what they were doing and were hoping for a negative outcome so that some magical war would start.
<sarcasm>They are completely "sane" and we should associated the name and prestige of the United Sates Government with it because through the magic of the first amendment everything made under its rubric is worthy of it </sarcasm>.
Get real.
2) No one has empathy for the sick fucks that killed our people. But that does not free me from having empathy with those who were angered by the film and didn't kill four of our people. I would rather my rage and desire for justice be targeted at the few who did this heinous the act. May their capture and/or death be an abject lesson to those that "mess with Americans" as our President has said.
To give you an example more personal Rock, as the grandson of Jews that escaped from Nazi Germany I find the words, music and film of various American Nazi groups completely unacceptable and I will condemn them publicly, loudly. I do not expect my government to remain silent on the issue or allow itself to be tarred by the same brush. But I would fight just as hard for their rights to say their hateful shit.
Rock. I had to count to... well a very high number before my blood pressure came down after reading your post.
1) No one is laying 100% blame on the fuck nuts that made "The Passion of the Muslims." Though they knew what they were doing and were hoping for a negative outcome so that some magical war would start.
<sarcasm>They are completely "sane" and we should associated the name and prestige of the United Sates Government with it because through the magic of the first amendment everything made under its rubric is worthy of it </sarcasm>.
Get real.
2) No one has empathy for the sick fucks that killed our people. But that does not free me from having empathy with those who were angered by the film and didn't kill four of our people. I would rather my rage and desire for justice be targeted at the few who did this heinous the act. May their capture and/or death be an abject lesson to those that "mess with Americans" as our President has said.
To give you an example more personal Rock, as the grandson of Jews that escaped from Nazi Germany I find the words, music and film of various American Nazi groups completely unacceptable and I will condemn them publicly, loudly. I do not expect my government to remain silent on the issue or allow itself to be tarred by the same brush. But I would fight just as hard for their rights to say their hateful shit.
NONE of the blame should be placed on this film.
Even with your historical background, if you went out and killed 4 members of a Neo-Nazi Punk Rock group, no court in America would accept their utterly disgusting and offensive music as a viable defense. Nor should they.
We have people in this country that via their freedom of expression denigrate every religious, spiritual and cultural belief known to man....should we only speak out against those that "cause" people to take innocent lives?
Here's what it boils down to for me and if someone wants to take a shot at rationalizing it I'm all ears.
How can our government come out and condemn a piece of art that denigrates a specific religion when it has literally subsidized art that denigrates a specific religion?
I give up. You win Rock. The US government has be persecuting religion forever. I mean I have to cross state lines to find a house of worship and the taxes paid are huge. The only schools allowed are godless soviet style ones.
I give up. You win Rock. The US government has be persecuting religion forever. I mean I have to cross state lines to find a house of worship and the taxes paid are huge. The only schools allowed are godless soviet style ones.
"Wow," that pretty much sums up my sums up my feelings on your last few posts. I really cannot rationally talk to the massive cognitive dissonance contained their in.
My last post is not my finest hour but definitely one of my most sarcastic.There is obviously some massive reservoir of untapped anger inside of me that you drilled into Rock. And, rather than make you the focus of it I am going to go purge it because that is not healthy for me to carry around.
Congrats, I am walking away from this specific debate. I cannot invest my soul in it without staining it.
i am NOT pumped up for the 10 page thread of NAGL that will surely follow
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
Rockadelic said:
Here's what it boils down to for me and if someone wants to take a shot at rationalizing it I'm all ears.
How can our government come out and condemn a piece of art that denigrates a specific religion when it has literally subsidized art that denigrates a specific religion?
If you would set strict parameters within which freedom of speech can be exercised in a limited way, can you truly say you believe in freedom of speech? If the makers of The Innocence Of Muslims had to get approval from a US government committee before they could make their film, irrespective of whether or not it "denigrates a specific religion", then they'd be no better off than they would if they'd tried to make it in Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Russia or North Korea. Well, maybe a little better off - they'd almost certainly be imprisoned and probably killed in two of those countries, and thrown to the wolves in the others.
But the point is, in America you are free to make a shitty movie like that without government interference. What you're not free from is responsibility for the consequences of your shitty movie. And if the consequences of making literally inflammatory and socially irresponsible garbage like The Innocence Of Muslims results in the death of American citizens overseas, then it would be a pretty shitty US government that didn't come out and condemn you in my opinion. In which case, you'd do well to remember that they didn't try and stop you. Your right to make provocative art doesn't trump the right of people to express their offence and disapproval just because you wrap yourself in the flag and shout "freedom of speech!", any more than their moral outrage gives them the right to prevent you from expressing yourself at all. Freedom within a democratic society is all about navigating the line between the two things, and anyone who smugly basks in all the luxuries of that freedom while their fellow citizens are put at risk elsewhere as a direct consequence of their lack of responsibility is beneath contempt as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, why all the fuss over condemnation? That's part of what politicians do, after all - they "condemn" things "in the strongest possible terms". It's when they start to actively legislate against, or otherwise attempt to censor, art or any other form of expression that people need to start worrying. Except nobody really gave much of a fuck when Tipper Gore and C. Delores Tucker went on the warpath against "offensive" rap/metal/punk-rock, which is the most obvious example in recent times of political figures in a democracy actively attempting - successfully, in some instances - to proscribe and subsequently limit artistic expression, regardless of whatever thin-lipped, self-righteous justification they tried to hide behind at the time.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The problem for me is one of consistency and basing freedoms on their own merit, not on what reaction they may cause. Our government has taken taxpayer money and given it to an "artist" who used it to take a Christian deity and place it upside down in a jar of urine. It was then put on public display. It was given an award by the government sponsored Southwest Center For Contemporary Arts. Some groups and politicians tried to stop it from being displayed and were rightfully met with "you don't like it, tough luck, this is America where we have the freedoms that allow such a display". Was this art just as insulting to a religion as the film in question or some cartoons...absolutely. If there were murders committed by Christians around the world because of this display would our government THEN come out and condemn this state sponsored art? I think and would hope not.
IMO the government condemnation of this film is a double standard that basically says "We not only support, but have paid and rewarded an artist who insulted and denigrated Christians because it didn't result in death(s), but we don't support the insulting and denigration of another religion who's followers may not take it as well". I have no religious affiliation of any sort but I can see the hypocrisy and double standard being practiced here and I don't think it is healthy for our freedoms.
b/w
The PMRC did indeed make a big stink and resulted in government hearings and Frank Zappa's finest hour. Just imagine how more outrageous it would have been if the government had sponsored and approved of one style of offensive music while condemning others.
Guess it all depends on what resources you have available to you.
Some take to the streets with direct acts of violence when they feel their beliefs are threatened and ridiculed, while others react with indirect violence by financially backing lobbyists and politicians, boycotting advertisers and compromising others' access to education, health services and basic rights afforded others.
Guess it all depends on what resources you have available to you.
Some take to the streets with direct acts of violence when they feel their beliefs are threatened and ridiculed, while others react with indirect violence by financially backing lobbyists and politicians, boycotting advertisers and compromising others' access to education, health services and basic rights afforded others.
I know what you mean.
Remember that the will plays an important part in making decisions. If you are willing to only give yourself two options then it is by your own will that you choose not to do neither or both or consider other options.
Guess it all depends on what resources you have available to you.
Some take to the streets with direct acts of violence when they feel their beliefs are threatened and ridiculed, while others react with indirect violence by financially backing lobbyists and politicians, boycotting advertisers and compromising others' access to education, health services and basic rights afforded others.
I know what you mean.
Remember that the will plays an important part in making decisions. If you are willing to only give yourself two options then it is by your own will that you choose not to do neither or both or consider other options.
Comments
The point I see being made is; when government officials, top government officials, attack a person's expression it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
We are talking about speech out side the political sphere.
So if the president attacks a hip hop song for being violent, a video game for being graphic, an art exhibit for being blasphemes or a movie for being pornographic or anti-Islamic, it has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
The government should be encouraging freedom of speech, not discouraging it.
That is the argument and I am just about convinced.
So even though the govt hasnt banned said hip hop record, hasn't yanked said video game off the shelves, hasn't stopped anyone from creating said products nor prevented someone from having a public stage from saying anything regardless how stupid/inflammatory, it is still somehow censorship? Interesting. So the government should in no way simply explain that some dipshit's opinion/worldview is not the view/position of the majority because disagreeing with someone should be verboten and doing so is raping freedom of speech and leaving it in a ditch? Last I checked you can make and sell any video game, make any song, make any movie...so you must then feel the FCC should be banished because you can't show graphic sex and gruesome violence with the word fuck on prime time TV because it is a hindrance to freedom of speech because the government doesn't think those are good ideas?
As for the rest of what you said, I have not gone there yet.
In fact what I said was; "I am just about convinced".
If you want to convince me otherwise try writing less hysterically and more persuasively.
This is good persuasive writing:
so in a world where a group of people who are willing to kill for a religion, a world where religion is part of ones culture, perhaps explaining to those people that an entire nation believes that Freedom of Speech is more important than hurt feelings, an entire nation wasn't throwing rocks but one person expressed their opinion, and they have a right to do that, an entire nation fully supports their right to make a stupid and terrible movie, the good thing to do is to explain to the people who want to kill to stop free expression is to explain to them that free expression is as important to us as religion is to them.
I don't buy it.
Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism. Hell the daily White House press briefing is chock full of critiques. Why do you think they call the presidency "The Bully Pulpit?"
What do you think the members of the House and Senate are doing with their press availability?
Our government and its employees have every right to state their position (right or wrong) on anything you say. What they cannot do is abridge your rights to say it. There is the rub.
Its one thing to publicly condemn someone or something, it is a whole 'nother kettle of fish to actively suppress someone or something.
Besides, I want to hear condemnation directly from our government, rather than from proxies working on their behalf.
But they're not discouraging it. Didn't anybody else see the words "for me, personally" in that quote from Hillary? It's hardly "outside the political sphere" either. Anything concerning non-Muslim attitudes to Islam risks having a global impact nowadays, whether justified or not. Don't forget why Hillary was speaking on it in the first place; US diplomatic missions were being attacked precisely because the US government doesn't discourage freedom of speech (at least, not openly). When you have prominent Islamist figures saying things like, "If we'd been allowed to kill Salman Rushdie, that film would never have been made", well...how's that for a "chilling effect"?
As was pointed out upthread, much of the outrage over that movie came from within societies where it is completely unthinkable that such a thing could ever have been made without government approval. That's the difference between freedom of expression in a liberal democracy and whatever the equivalent happens to be within a theocracy or dictatorship. I'd personally expect any responsible, intelligent politician to point this out, especially when discussing something which was (imo) so obviously and cravenly intended to provoke racial and religious hatred under the guise of free expression.
Now, back to the Secretary Of State...
"Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today???s world with today???s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."
She never uses the word "censor" at all, by the way. Not even to say, "we do not censor [blahblahyadayada]". Nobody's freedom of speech is being removed, threatened, "chilled" or otherwise impinged upon here. Panic over, people.
The children you deal with (I assume) are locked up or at least isolated from society and for good reason. We don't change the rules and morals of our society so those children you work with can better adapt, they have to change or else be condemned to whatever punishment fits their offenses. Regardless of your culture, murder is unacceptable. Whether you approve of this movie or not, if you are going to blame murders on the film you are in fact blaming our freedom of speech and expression for the deaths of 4 Americans who by all accounts were good people working for the good of the people of Libya. Man up and place the blame where it belongs, on murdering savages who don't deserve our empathy or understanding. Whether real or perception, what most people seem to have heard from the media was more distancing from a film by our government than condemnation of these murders. What kind of dialogue can you expect from what you call "irrational, psychologically damaged people "?
1) No one is laying 100% blame on the fuck nuts that made "The Passion of the Muslims." Though they knew what they were doing and were hoping for a negative outcome so that some magical war would start. Get real.
2) No one has empathy for the sick fucks that killed our people. But that does not free me from having empathy with those who were angered by the film and didn't kill four of our people. I would rather my rage and desire for justice be targeted at the few who did this heinous the act. May their capture and/or death be an abject lesson to those that "mess with Americans" as our President has said.
To give you an example more personal Rock, as the grandson of Jews that escaped from Nazi Germany I find the words, music and film of various American Nazi groups completely unacceptable and I will condemn them publicly, loudly. I do not expect my government to remain silent on the issue or allow itself to be tarred by the same brush. But I would fight just as hard for their rights to say their hateful shit.
NONE of the blame should be placed on this film.
Even with your historical background, if you went out and killed 4 members of a Neo-Nazi Punk Rock group, no court in America would accept their utterly disgusting and offensive music as a viable defense. Nor should they.
We have people in this country that via their freedom of expression denigrate every religious, spiritual and cultural belief known to man....should we only speak out against those that "cause" people to take innocent lives?
How can our government come out and condemn a piece of art that denigrates a specific religion when it has literally subsidized art that denigrates a specific religion?
USA! USA! USA!
Land of godless heathens.
This thread has been crazy, but fun.
Good the hear your voices.
"Wow," that pretty much sums up my sums up my feelings on your last few posts. I really cannot rationally talk to the massive cognitive dissonance contained their in.
My last post is not my finest hour but definitely one of my most sarcastic.There is obviously some massive reservoir of untapped anger inside of me that you drilled into Rock. And, rather than make you the focus of it I am going to go purge it because that is not healthy for me to carry around.
Congrats, I am walking away from this specific debate. I cannot invest my soul in it without staining it.
Night guys. I am out.
If you would set strict parameters within which freedom of speech can be exercised in a limited way, can you truly say you believe in freedom of speech? If the makers of The Innocence Of Muslims had to get approval from a US government committee before they could make their film, irrespective of whether or not it "denigrates a specific religion", then they'd be no better off than they would if they'd tried to make it in Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, Russia or North Korea. Well, maybe a little better off - they'd almost certainly be imprisoned and probably killed in two of those countries, and thrown to the wolves in the others.
But the point is, in America you are free to make a shitty movie like that without government interference. What you're not free from is responsibility for the consequences of your shitty movie. And if the consequences of making literally inflammatory and socially irresponsible garbage like The Innocence Of Muslims results in the death of American citizens overseas, then it would be a pretty shitty US government that didn't come out and condemn you in my opinion. In which case, you'd do well to remember that they didn't try and stop you. Your right to make provocative art doesn't trump the right of people to express their offence and disapproval just because you wrap yourself in the flag and shout "freedom of speech!", any more than their moral outrage gives them the right to prevent you from expressing yourself at all. Freedom within a democratic society is all about navigating the line between the two things, and anyone who smugly basks in all the luxuries of that freedom while their fellow citizens are put at risk elsewhere as a direct consequence of their lack of responsibility is beneath contempt as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, why all the fuss over condemnation? That's part of what politicians do, after all - they "condemn" things "in the strongest possible terms". It's when they start to actively legislate against, or otherwise attempt to censor, art or any other form of expression that people need to start worrying. Except nobody really gave much of a fuck when Tipper Gore and C. Delores Tucker went on the warpath against "offensive" rap/metal/punk-rock, which is the most obvious example in recent times of political figures in a democracy actively attempting - successfully, in some instances - to proscribe and subsequently limit artistic expression, regardless of whatever thin-lipped, self-righteous justification they tried to hide behind at the time.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The problem for me is one of consistency and basing freedoms on their own merit, not on what reaction they may cause. Our government has taken taxpayer money and given it to an "artist" who used it to take a Christian deity and place it upside down in a jar of urine. It was then put on public display. It was given an award by the government sponsored Southwest Center For Contemporary Arts. Some groups and politicians tried to stop it from being displayed and were rightfully met with "you don't like it, tough luck, this is America where we have the freedoms that allow such a display". Was this art just as insulting to a religion as the film in question or some cartoons...absolutely. If there were murders committed by Christians around the world because of this display would our government THEN come out and condemn this state sponsored art? I think and would hope not.
IMO the government condemnation of this film is a double standard that basically says "We not only support, but have paid and rewarded an artist who insulted and denigrated Christians because it didn't result in death(s), but we don't support the insulting and denigration of another religion who's followers may not take it as well". I have no religious affiliation of any sort but I can see the hypocrisy and double standard being practiced here and I don't think it is healthy for our freedoms.
b/w
The PMRC did indeed make a big stink and resulted in government hearings and Frank Zappa's finest hour. Just imagine how more outrageous it would have been if the government had sponsored and approved of one style of offensive music while condemning others.
Some take to the streets with direct acts of violence when they feel their beliefs are threatened and ridiculed, while others react with indirect violence by financially backing lobbyists and politicians, boycotting advertisers and compromising others' access to education, health services and basic rights afforded others.
I know what you mean.
Remember that the will plays an important part in making decisions. If you are willing to only give yourself two options then it is by your own will that you choose not to do neither or both or consider other options.
Romney's a former mormon bishop correct? So he performed these ceremonies?
=> 'logically equivalent'
?? 'not'
v 'or'
^ 'and'
Let p & q be two options. Your own choice:
??(??p ^ ??q) "not to do neither"
p ^ q "both"
? "consider other options"
[ ??(??p ^ ??q) ] v [ p ^ q ] v [ ? ] => [ p v q ] v [ p ^ q ] v [ ? ]
[ p v q ] v [ p ^ q ] => p v q
So,
p v q v [ ? ]
Either option p, q, or both or 'other' options not part of this set.
Thus, p v q or p ^ q
'One of the options or both'
FE
Comparing IOM to government funded art? Agreed. But that's the one you're making.