Free speech issue (controversial)

KrAzY3

KrAzY3

CAGiversary!
Feedback
4 (100%)
I'm not sure any of you have heard about this, but a important free speech issue is taking place.

Depictions of the "Prophet Muhammed" are forbidden by the Koran (much like the Bible forbids graven images). For years, the worldwide media has practiced self-censorship in this regard. While, for instance the cover of Rolling Stone depicts Kanye West as Jesus (a sacrilegious act), even the most outspoken papers have refused to depict Muhammed.

Well, a paper in Denmark (Jyllands Posten) decided to confront this issue of self-censorship and post some pictures of Muhammed: http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Cartoons_Jyllands_Posten.html (I'm not going to post any pictures here, so that the site itself won't face retaliation).

In response, violence broke out amongst many Muslims. Kidnappings have occurred, chants of "Death to Denmark" and so on. The artists have had to go into hiding for fear of safety. Kidnappings have occurred, embassies have been closed. A few papers posted pictures in a show of support, but out of those papers 2 editors were fired and the violence outbursts have been directed towards citizens of those countries. For instance, a German was kidnapped. For more information those goings on read here: Cartoon blasphemy uproar gathers pace

This has become a issue of the western way of life versus the Islamic way of life. Mind you, I have nothing against the religion itself, but I have something against ANYTHING Christianity or otherwise that forces me into living by their own religious rules.

In this case, the Western world is being bullied. This is not a matter of what someone finds offensive, but a matter of a fundamental right to free press and free speech. Yet, only a handful of papers have had the nerve to post these pictures and at that several of those bowed down for fear of greater retaliation.

If the free press of the world can be bullied into censoring itself, WORLDWIDE then what next? This is not a matter contained within America (no paper has posted the pictures here yet), but one in which the entire free world is bowing down to outrageous demands and irresponsible actions. This is not a case of a reasonable reaction, this is not a case of merely peaceful protest. This is a case of the free press being controlled through violence and intimidation.

Just to provide a further example, on my own site I posted a drawing I made in protest. Mind you, this is a site that deals with much controversial material. But, for the first time ever, in response to my silly stick figure drawing I had a DEMAND from someone I was associated with that I remove it. Mind you, we've posted all kinds of things such as a Jesus Dildo, a shattered image of the pope on the front page, etc... yet on this issue the individual feared retaliation from his Muslim friends. If you want to see the image I made, I posted it here along with a assortment of other images to make a point (caution this link contains offensive images): http://www.rydas.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2202

I respect people's right to practice religion, PEACEFULLY. Unfortunately, Protestants and Catholics alike went through their violent periods and it would appear that Islam is undergoing their own period in which violence is widely accepted. The Western world needs to take a stand.
 
[quote name='Msia']VS forum?[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, I suppose I should ask the mods to move this there. I overlooked that when looking for the right place to post this. I apologize, I rarely venture outside of the deals forum.
 
Not sure if you've seen or not, but a bunch of other newspapers in Europe published the cartoons recently. I think it's been in France, Germany, and one of the Scandinavian countries (and perhaps Spain if I'm remembering correctly).

I think the original author did a pretty good job of showing that the media was practicing self-censorship of this topic for a good reason. Not that I'm saying self sensorship is a good thing; I think it's one of the worst things you can do since it stifles discussion and only creates resentment from those censoring themselves.
 
[quote name='RacinReaver']Not sure if you've seen or not, but a bunch of other newspapers in Europe published the cartoons recently. I think it's been in France, Germany, and one of the Scandinavian countries (and perhaps Spain if I'm remembering correctly).

I think the original author did a pretty good job of showing that the media was practicing self-censorship of this topic for a good reason. Not that I'm saying self sensorship is a good thing; I think it's one of the worst things you can do since it stifles discussion and only creates resentment from those censoring themselves.[/QUOTE]

Yes, a few newspapers have published them but as of yet it is not to the extent that they can do so without fear of retaliation. Unless a multitude take up the cause, the minority of newspapers will continue to be targeted.

I think self-censorship is a delicate issue. I mean, in issues of national security for instance it makes a lot of sense. And to a extent, local media tends to respect those. Though of course they still happily cover things like security vulnerabilities without care as to whether or not that can aid people who would wish to cause others harm. The media usually takes the approach of covering stories and the like and not being responsible for how others react.

For instance, when it came to publishing the prisoner abuse photos the media had a touch choice. There was certainly a demand to see them, people were curious. On the other hand, the knowledge was that posting the pictures would most likely lead to more violence. Mind you, the people who did these acts are horrible people but it does not make all American personnel or western people evil. But, ultimately the choice was made to publish the pictures in the spirit of the free press.

As we know these pictures made the rounds all over the world. Now, contract this lack of self-censorship with the attitude towards a few cartoons that in reality are no more disturbing than your average political caricature and you have a issue of the free press not being so free.

For instance, as I said I made a intentionally offensive stick figure "prophet" in protest of how Denmark was being treated. In response, I had someone who is in fact a Christian and as of yet never complained about the many offensive things directed towards Christianity on the site demand I take it down. Why? He fears retaliation from Muslims he knows. Why should they be so much more intolerant than he is? Or, for instance why when I made a similar post (in the right place actually) on a ADULT form with topics ranging from Chinese censorship of the Internet to "Nazi porn" and it gets deleted.

Web sites are even afraid to post these pictures. In a net full of all kinds of disgusting and vile filth, the mere fact that people are afraid to deal with this subject speaks to the fact that we are on the verge of having our way of life altered. What next? If we can't post some damn cartoons what else will the more extreme followers of Islam decide we can't do?
__________________
 
Denmark has a strong anti-immigrant, particularly anti-muslim, reputation. When I saw the image originally I assumed it was an attack on islam myself, and that belief is backed up by the fact the paper is from denmark. I really don't thing the paper just innocently posted things to break taboos and self censorship.

They're over-reacting, just like americans over-reacted with the whole freedom fries, boycott france thing. Sure the reactions were different, but we were a lot less offended.

Though even the title screams vs.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Denmark has a strong anti-immigrant, particularly anti-muslim, reputation. When I saw the image originally I assumed it was an attack on islam myself, and that belief is backed up by the fact the paper is from denmark. I really don't thing the paper just innocently posted things to break taboos and self censorship.

They're over-reacting, just like americans over-reacted with the whole freedom fries, boycott france thing. Sure the reactions were different, but we were a lot less offended.

Though even the title screams vs.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I posted it in the wrong forum in retrospect.

But, it isn't really the same in my mind. America's reaction was not a violent one. Boycotts and the like? They SHOULD do that if they are so offended. But kidnapping people? Attacking embassies? That's not a acceptable response to being offended. They HAVE to learn tolerance. If they do not, we will litterally live in fear of a violent outburst from the Islamic world. So what if the newspaper was overtly anti-Islamic? There are certainly a untold number of anti-Christian papers in the middle east, I don't see people in the streets chanting "Death to Jordan".
 
Well I did say it's an overreaction. A lot of people seem to think the government is complicit in this, I assume thats due to the power the state has over the press in many middle eastern countries.

I don't think there is an equivalent taboo so central to our culture. They posted a photo of mohammed, no one would really have been that upset even though it's considered offensive to draw his image. It's what else went into those pictures.

Again, the reaction goes way too far, but I don't think its just some innocent unsuspecting danish paper caught up in all this either.
 
There actually isn't a 'fundamental right to free speech', at least as recognized by the majority of world governments. The freedom of speech we have is truly an anomaly when compared to the rest of the world.

Self-censorship could also be called 'taste' or 'tact' or 'respect', and is not necessarily bad. That said, these reactions of violence et al are entirely disgusting and ridiculous. Of course, while we generally don't riot here, 'intolerance' of free speech still exists here--that professor who claimed to have scientific proof that women and men learn differently was almost run out of town on a rail, and *he* was forced to apologize.

Of course, the thing about the prisoner abuse photos is a little different--printing those photos helped the mainstream media's agenda of drumming up resistance to the war.

While I don't condone violence for printing a cartoon, I think the 'self censorship' the press has previously practiced has been a good, respectful thing. Of course, tolerance and respect is in short supply nowadays. Being a decent human being means thinking of others as well as yourself. When I'm driving my car, blasting music, and stop at a redlight next to someone, I turn down the radio, self-censoring, out of respect for my neighbor. I 'self censor' my language or phrasing around certain people, again, out of respect. Of course, if I*were* to slip, I would hope that anyone around me wouldn't go postal and want to burn down my house or something; that signifies *their* lack of respect for me as a human.
 
Kinda funny that vs forum keeps popping up, given that it's been censored from the front page.

Censorship in the name of corporate interests is popping up everywhere. In the arena of censorship, I'm more concerned about the CEO of Walmart then the pope.

Censorship almost always sucks. I wonder if South Park will have the balls to take this on (they did do a hilarious send-up of Scientology...)
 
Refusing to sell something is not censorship, it's a business decision.
Punishing someone for speaking/writing, is.
You have the right to free speech, but that does not imply the right to have your 'speech' sold or reprinted wherever you want.

Boycotts, counter-speech, advertising your side/opinion, all of those are legitimate, valid, fair ways of expressing disagreement with certain speech. Silencing, by killing, imprisoning, or cutting out the tongue of the speaker, are not.

Technically, and based on the dictionary definition,yes, any 'examination and expurgation' is 'censorship'. But based on that definition, not all 'censorship' is bad. Many people probably self-censor emails they write; editors censor books and articles. All that censorship is expected and not necessarily bad. And again, the *work* is being censored, not the *author*. The book editor saying "I'm not going to publish your book unless you remove chapter 3" is perfectly legitimate; him saying "Go to jail because you didn't remove chapter 3" is not. +0
 
tsk, tsk. When a company decides not to sell a product it's not censorship, it's freedom. When a government decrees something cannot be sold, it's censorship. There's a huge difference between Sam Walton and the Pope.
 
Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

Newspaper A doesn't run an expose on Walmart because Walmart just bought a ton of ads (or the newspaper).

That's the kind of censorship I'm concerned about.

I'm also not thrilled about the way that corporate-funded lobbyists buy off popular pundits to write about particular political issues, thus letting corporate money set the general editorial agenda.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Technically, and based on the dictionary definition,yes, any 'examination and expurgation' is 'censorship'. But based on that definition, not all 'censorship' is bad. Many people probably self-censor emails they write; editors censor books and articles. All that censorship is expected and not necessarily bad. And again, the *work* is being censored, not the *author*. The book editor saying "I'm not going to publish your book unless you remove chapter 3" is perfectly legitimate; him saying "Go to jail because you didn't remove chapter 3" is not. +0[/QUOTE]

I believe that there's a difference between editing and censoring - I'm not going to call correcting spelling mistakes and removing boring chapters censorship; the word censorship implies a controversial political, religious, or moral issue.

I don't think any rational person has a problem with honest self-censorship, self-censorship that isn't coerced by law, culture, or a radical part of society.

Your example is rather simplistic - (IE The book editor saying "I'm not going to publish your book unless you remove chapter 3" is perfectly legitimate) It would be a more interesting arguement if you elaborated - is Chapter 3 simply boring or is Chapter 3 dealing with a controversial issue (such as "The Satanic Verses") Also, by legitimate do you mean technically legal or fair and just?
 
Well, people have to remember that this is in the context of political satire. Political satire makes a point of addressing controversial issues and trying to make light of them. That's the whole point, so I don't think that Denmark was at all out of bounds if you consider the fact that it was addressing HIGHLY relevant issues, not just poking fun for the sake of poking fun. Terrorism IS a relevant issue, women's rights, etc... they all are highly relevant so it isn't really fair to dismiss the newspaper as being anti-Muslim when they were addressing relevant issues.

As far as a fundamental right to free speech, it might be arrogant to assert that, but I believe people should have a right to be free and express themselves as they see fit. Most of the west agrees with that notion, which is why I see this as a west vs Islam flash point.

If you want a example of other satire that has gone unnoticed in a short search I was able to dig these up:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics/DieForMe.gif
This one takes a shot at American, Jesus and Bush all in one. About as offensive as you can get.

Or how about this one, covering US, Israel and 9/11 in one. Obviously a VERY sensitive subject.
http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/K-ghods/karikator/18.jpg

And as we know, they take on relevant issues, which vary greatly. For instance this one just deals with homophobia:
http://www.xiii.net/matthew/caricature.jpg

The point is that the idea of a caricature being offensive is almost redundant. Its pretty much the point, it will offend people that disagree with it and some are more offensive than others.

To me though, this has gone beyond whether or not the newspaper should have or shouldn't have posted the pictures. They did, and I think their right to do so should be defended. As I said, the artists fear for their life. I personally think this issue should be pressed, not left alone. I don't want the Islamic world to feel like they can bully the rest of the world into catering to their whims, whether or not it was legitimately offensive. Iran is holding a conference on the Holocaust to try and disprove it, you want offensive that's offensive. The caricatures were just that, caricatures.

This isn't really a issue of censorship anymore (to me). The line was crossed, they chose not to self-censor, whether or not that was a good idea is no longer the issue here, as I see it. Up until then no one would touch the issue, now they have. The thing to watch now is if we see the western world bow to the demands or take a stand. I believe if we do not take a stand we will set a very bad precedent. Now, we will see how free the press really is.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Well, people have to remember that this is in the context of political satire. Political satire makes a point of addressing controversial issues and trying to make light of them. That's the whole point, so I don't think that Denmark was at all out of bounds if you consider the fact that it was addressing HIGHLY relevant issues, not just poking fun for the sake of poking fun. Terrorism IS a relevant issue, women's rights, etc... they all are highly relevant so it isn't really fair to dismiss the newspaper as being anti-Muslim when they were addressing relevant issues.

As far as a fundamental right to free speech, it might be arrogant to assert that, but I believe people should have a right to be free and express themselves as they see fit. Most of the west agrees with that notion, which is why I see this as a west vs Islam flash point.

If you want a example of other satire that has gone unnoticed in a short search I was able to dig these up:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/politics/DieForMe.gif
This one takes a shot at American, Jesus and Bush all in one. About as offensive as you can get.

Or how about this one, covering US, Israel and 9/11 in one. Obviously a VERY sensitive subject.
http://www.irib.ir/worldservice/K-ghods/karikator/18.jpg

And as we know, they take on relevant issues, which vary greatly. For instance this one just deals with homophobia:
http://www.xiii.net/matthew/caricature.jpg

The point is that the idea of a caricature being offensive is almost redundant. Its pretty much the point, it will offend people that disagree with it and some are more offensive than others.

To me though, this has gone beyond whether or not the newspaper should have or shouldn't have posted the pictures. They did, and I think their right to do so should be defended. As I said, the artists fear for their life. I personally think this issue should be pressed, not left alone. I don't want the Islamic world to feel like they can bully the rest of the world into catering to their whims, whether or not it was legitimately offensive. Iran is holding a conference on the Holocaust to try and disprove it, you want offensive that's offensive. The caricatures were just that, caricatures.

This isn't really a issue of censorship anymore (to me). The line was crossed, they chose not to self-censor, whether or not that was a good idea is no longer the issue here, as I see it. Up until then no one would touch the issue, now they have. The thing to watch now is if we see the western world bow to the demands or take a stand. I believe if we do not take a stand we will set a very bad precedent. Now, we will see how free the press really is.[/QUOTE]

Most countries have hate speech laws, showing mohammed with a bomb in his head is sketchy, maybe a technicality, but unlikely to result in prosecution. Most of the west though does not agree to free speach as you described it. The u.s. is one of the few western countries without laws against hate speech.

But denmark, again, is becoming known for strong anti-immigrant/anti-muslim sentiment. It seems highly likely that along with the "satire", bigotry also played a part in those comics.
 
[quote name='camoor']I believe that there's a difference between editing and censoring - I'm not going to call correcting spelling mistakes and removing boring chapters censorship; the word censorship implies a controversial political, religious, or moral issue.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it does. Which is why I get so appalled at people [not in this thread] crying "Censorship!" when a message board owner deletes a post, or a game manufacturer decides not to sell a game, or something like that.
I was being very specific--technically 'censoring' is removing any part of a work. But used like that, 'censor' is a neutral word. 'Censorship' with the negative connotation is a very specific subcategory of that 'removal', and it can also include punishing/harming the originator of the work.

[quote name='camoor']II don't think any rational person has a problem with honest self-censorship, self-censorship that isn't coerced by law, culture, or a radical part of society.

Your example is rather simplistic - (IE The book editor saying "I'm not going to publish your book unless you remove chapter 3" is perfectly legitimate) It would be a more interesting arguement if you elaborated - is Chapter 3 simply boring or is Chapter 3 dealing with a controversial issue (such as "The Satanic Verses") Also, by legitimate do you mean technically legal or fair and just? [/QUOTE]

Any of the above. As long as it's a private entity, not a government, he can decide to 'censor' whatever he wants of my work, whether it be changing Tom Sawyer's name to Todd, or removing all references to race from that same novel. I, of course, have the right to say "No, I don't want you to publish it all then", unless I have voluntarily signed a contract, in which case I previously agreed, "I will write what you want." All of which are legal, fair, and just, and not examples of the negative connotation of 'censorship'.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the countries with "hate speech" laws (by the way, papers in Spain, Denmark, Norway, France and Germany have all run the cartoons although Denmark and France have since apologized) are very specific.

Simply being hateful is not what is required, overt racism and in some case very specific criteria would be required. Depicting "the prophet" as a terrorist, for political purposes it is no different than, say showing Bush riding a bomb: http://www.kellypro.com/images/performers/ImaginativeActs/DrStrangeloveRevisited.jpg

But you are right, even some Western countries are more repressive but who here can say it is a leap to tie Islam to terrorism? It doesn't take a rocket scientist and the idea that broaching the subject could/should subject us to violence is ridiculous.

Furthermore, here are some cartoons that have run in the Middle East:
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/cartoons/jewish-snake.gif
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/cartoons/israel-usa.gif

As I have alluded to before, it is not as if they are sitting there in the middle east peacefully minding their business. The idea that they can go about their business as they see fit, but the western world can not is insane.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the countries with "hate speech" laws (by the way, papers in Spain, Denmark, Norway, France and Germany have all run the cartoons although Denmark and France have since apologized) are very specific.

Simply being hateful is not what is required, overt racism and in some case very specific criteria would be required. Depicting "the prophet" as a terrorist, for political purposes it is no different than, say showing Bush riding a bomb: http://www.kellypro.com/images/performers/ImaginativeActs/DrStrangeloveRevisited.jpg[/quote]

But is it not hateful? Showing a political figure is a lot different than a religious figure.

But you are right, even some Western countries are more repressive but who here can say it is a leap to tie Islam to terrorism? It doesn't take a rocket scientist and the idea that broaching the subject could/should subject us to violence is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between suggesting that some members of islam are terrorists and that islam is terrorism, that later is exactly what the images, particularly the one with the bomb, do. It would be like having a cartoon where jesus was having sex with a little boy. It's offensive, disregarding everything else, it's offensive.

Furthermore, here are some cartoons that have run in the Middle East:
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/cartoons/jewish-snake.gif
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-conflict/cartoons/israel-usa.gif

As I have alluded to before, it is not as if they are sitting there in the middle east peacefully minding their business. The idea that they can go about their business as they see fit, but the western world can not is insane.
Click to expand...

Well, the west has influence well beyond its national borders, and has long interfered with the world. Every area of the world has to deal with the west in one way or another. But, the vast majority of muslims are peacefully minding their business.

Though neither cartoon is nearly as bad. Israel itself uses the star of david as its national symbol, so you really have a choice as to whether you think it's an attack on jews, zionism or both. Either way, there are many offensive articles and cartoons posted about muslims, there are just different degrees of offensive. Most don't show muhammed with a bomb in his head.

Though the israel/us one isn't offensive in my mind, especially since it appears to be dealing with the impact of specific nations. You honestly don't believe attacking a nation and attack the most important element of a religion are the same, do you?
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']
I respect people's right to practice religion, PEACEFULLY. Unfortunately, Protestants and Catholics alike went through their violent periods and it would appear that Islam is undergoing their own period in which violence is widely accepted. The Western world needs to take a stand.[/QUOTE]

The Western world is taking a stand, and all that is doing is causing MORE violence.

If its something as simple as a drawing that causes violence, wouldn't the easiest and most logical thing be to NOT do it? All those drawings are doing is causing MORE violence.
 
I posted a image depicting the cross, that refers to Jesus I am pretty sure. And many cartoons depict America or Israel was evil, as a whole mind you not just one segment.

And, this is not a issue of just being offensive. I think I clearly established that political cartoons by nature offensive. How offensive? Well you can argue that the bomb in turban was more offensive but I would say I was not offended by it at all. What offends someone is all relative, but my point is that political cartoons offend. That is their nature.

The point, once again is freedom of speech, expression and free press. Regardless of motives, regardless of how offensive they are they should not have to face violence and death threats in response. And that violent response alone is enough to make me want to make shit that is twice as offensive.

Take Larry Flynt for example. I don't think many people here are actually fans of his magazine. It was made to offend a bit, from the cartoons, pictures to the adds. Chester the Molester? Something was wrong with you if he didn't offend you. But what Larry Flynt did, in a very offensive way was make free speech more accesible to us all. Without people like him this site might have to be called cheapbuttgamer.com which sounds really silly.

The point is that you need people to take a stand, in Larry's case, go to court and in the cases of these cartoons stand up and refuse to be bullied. It is no longer about what is offensive it is about the RIGHT to do it. Once the death threats started, once the kidnapping started... it became about a right and I no longer view it as if they should have or shouldn't have.
 
[quote name='whoknows']The Western world is taking a stand, and all that is doing is causing MORE violence.

If its something as simple as a drawing that causes violence, wouldn't the easiest and most logical thing be to NOT do it? All those drawings are doing is causing MORE violence.[/QUOTE]

No, the western world is not causing violence. The middle east is reacting violently. There is a huge different. That is like saying a women caused rape by wearing a short dress. Nope, no way, no how. No one makes them act like that, we exercise our rights and they act violently. Their behavior is unacceptable and bowing to their violent means will only encourage them to increase that type of behavior.

To provide a example, lets say a kid was beat up on the way home for carrying the Koran. What would the best reaction be? Telling the kid to pretend he's not a muslim? Or doing your best to stand up for him and his right to be a muslim and carry a Koran? It is no different in this case. We should stand up against the violence rather than let the violence dictate what we do.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']
Once the death threats started, once the kidnapping started... it became about a right and I no longer view it as if they should have or shouldn't have.[/QUOTE]

Would the kidnappings have started if the US had never invaded Iraq? Would the violence have escalated more if the drawings were never done?

Having Bush invade Iraq due to "weapons of mass destruction" and getting Saddam Hussein out of power to "help the Iraqi people" and "Defend America's freedom" from thousands of miles away.

I have direct contacts with people in Iraq and they all said the situation was better when Saddam WAS still in power than it is now.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']No, the western world is not causing violence. The middle east is reacting violently. There is a huge different. That is like saying a women caused rape by wearing a short dress. Nope, no way, no how. No one makes them act like that, we exercise our rights and they act violently. Their behavior is unacceptable and bowing to their violent means will only encourage them to increase that type of behavior.

To provide a example, lets say a kid was beat up on the way home for carrying the Koran. What would the best reaction be? Telling the kid to pretend he's not a muslim? Or doing your best to stand up for him and his right to be a muslim and carry a Koran? It is no different in this case. We should stand up against the violence rather than let the violence dictate what we do.[/QUOTE]

The Western world is NOT causing violence? Did the US not invade Iraq? Is the US not giving Israel BILLIONS of dollars each year that is helping to fuel conflict with Palestine? Is the US not at war in Afghanistan?

I'm afraid the US has a HUGE influence on the violence going on in the Middle East. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']I posted a image depicting the cross, that refers to Jesus I am pretty sure. And many cartoons depict America or Israel was evil, as a whole mind you not just one segment.[/quote]

Nations are different than religions, most get that point.

And, this is not a issue of just being offensive. I think I clearly established that political cartoons by nature offensive. How offensive? Well you can argue that the bomb in turban was more offensive but I would say I was not offended by it at all. What offends someone is all relative, but my point is that political cartoons offend. That is their nature.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if I draw a cartoon of jesus I don't base my decision of whether it's offensive on the reaction of buddhists. If someone is totally unrelated to you why should I care if you are offended?

The point, once again is freedom of speech, expression and free press. Regardless of motives, regardless of how offensive they are they should not have to face violence and death threats in response. And that violent response alone is enough to make me want to make shit that is twice as offensive.

Take Larry Flynt for example. I don't think many people here are actually fans of his magazine. It was made to offend a bit, from the cartoons, pictures to the adds. Chester the Molester? Something was wrong with you if he didn't offend you. But what Larry Flynt did, in a very offensive way was make free speech more accesible to us all. Without people like him this site might have to be called cheapbuttgamer.com which sounds really silly.

The point is that you need people to take a stand, in Larry's case, go to court and in the cases of these cartoons stand up and refuse to be bullied. It is no longer about what is offensive it is about the RIGHT to do it. Once the death threats started, once the kidnapping started... it became about a right and I no longer view it as if they should have or shouldn't have.
Click to expand...

So if a newspaper was being attacked for mocking black slaves, you would want to go and make more cartoons mocking black slaves?
 
[quote name='whoknows']Would the kidnappings have started if the US had never invaded Iraq? Would the violence have escalated more if the drawings were never done?

Having Bush invade Iraq due to "weapons of mass destruction" and getting Saddam Hussein out of power to "help the Iraqi people" and "Defend America's freedom" from thousands of miles away.

I have direct contacts with people in Iraq and they all said the situation was better when Saddam WAS still in power than it is now.[/QUOTE]

You are combinging two issues. I have been carefull not to refer to anything involving the Iraq war, except the press covering the prison photos.

The kidnapping I refer to was of a GERMAN (and there were some others if I recall) and you know what? The GERMANs WERE AGAINST THE WAR. So obviously the war had nothing to do with the kidnapping, it was over two German papers publishing the cartoons.

Most of the violent reaction has been in Palestine (Palestinian areas) but it has been felt in other parts of the Middle East. I'm talking about Denmark and Norway here, American papers haven't even published the photos. So mixing the two isn't relevant. This is a seperate issue and it is NOT justifiable to respond to cartoons with violence. That is akin to saying if you make someone angry they have a right to or you caused them to be violent. Nope, not how it works.

On that note earlier I was watching Moral Oral on Cartoon Network which makes fun of almost every aspect of Christianity. The kid, for instance decides he is Jesus because he finds out his "dad" is not really his father, etc, etc, etc... but ya know, that's fine just don't make fun of "the prophet" or we'll kill you!
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Yes, but if I draw a cartoon of jesus I don't base my decision of whether it's offensive on the reaction of buddhists. If someone is totally unrelated to you why should I care if you are offended?

So if a newspaper was being attacked for mocking black slaves, you would want to go and make more cartoons mocking black slaves?[/QUOTE]

My point was that it was relative. I already posted a image that depicted America on the cross, certainly mocking Jesus. I also linked to my poll earlier, I was trying to demonstrate that different people find different things offensive. It just happens to be SOME muslims that are acting like bullies and thugs. When I'm offended I don't go trying to kill people or make death threats but may be that's just me. It saddens me to see that kind of behavior demonstrated at all. And it saddens me more to see people defend it.

Secondly, you are now comparison RACISM to bias against religion. The two are VERY different. Race is not a choice, religion is. So, morally I see much more room to mock the behavior of a religion than to mock a person over their race. Having said that, I would support the right of a paper to post racist material but I would not participate at all since as I explained I see no moral grounds to defend the action. But, if they tried to outlaw it I would defend the right for free speech as best I could.
 
I don't see a difference between attacking race or religion. Religion is a choice, but only partially. You can act heterosexual while being homosexual, but in the end you are what you are. Same with religion, in the end you believe what you believe. You can change the label of your faith, but you usually can't force yourself to truly believe in another religion.

How offensive something isdepends on the context, it is generally accepted that things are less offensive when made by members of that particular group. But, again, how offensive something is is usually gauged by the opinions of those being attacked. Since the cartoon attacks muslims, I think they should have more say than christians in terms of its offensiveness.

But if you think I'm defending violence then you ignored my posts. I defended the accusation it was offensive, I denounced the violence.
 
I'm not accusing you of defending it, I was speaking more towards SOME responses I have seen and the tone of some other posts. I'm sorry but sometimes I tend to be rather general in my response.

In regards to what you've said, I was just trying to say that while it IS offensive it was far from the most offensive thing I've seen or could come up with. Hell in a few minutes I made a much more offensive stick figure and I'm coming up with another one.

Why? Because I see France saying they are sorry, I see Denmark saying they are sorry FOR WHAT A PRIVATELY OWNED NEWSPAPER DID. I see Koffi Anan saying:"freedom of the press should always be exercised in a way that fully respects the religious beliefs and tenets of all religions”, in other words it is free as long as it doesn't piss any religious person off. Which is impossible if you think about it, almost everything is against one religion or another.

The Islamic world has to learn how to respond to offensive material in a peacefull manner. If the whole world stood up to them on this issue they'd learn. The Palestinians are attacking embassies, threatening Europe but the fact is they live off of European aid. If people put their foot down, if the world stood together they'd be forced to shut up or start chanting "Death to the world". I don't think they should get away with it, and for my part I'll do my tiny forms of protest.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can act heterosexual while being homosexual, but in the end you are what you are. [/QUOTE]

Prove it. Prove it, and then reconcile that proof with the Theory of Evolution, which I'm sure I'm correct in assuming you think is 100% fact.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']To provide a example, lets say a kid was beat up on the way home for carrying the Koran. What would the best reaction be? Telling the kid to pretend he's not a muslim? Or doing your best to stand up for him and his right to be a muslim and carry a Koran? It is no different in this case. We should stand up against the violence rather than let the violence dictate what we do.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, have you ever heard of taqiyya - here's a definition from wikipedia:
In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. It is most often used in times of persecution or danger.
Click to expand...

This is how muslims think - it's morally acceptable to conceal your beliefs if it means you can avoid the fear of losing your life.

However westerners have grown to love an expansive definition of freedom, including the freedom of expression, even at the expense of death ("Give me liberty or give me death" comes to mind).

No wonder the two perspectives are now clashing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Prove it. Prove it, and then reconcile that proof with the Theory of Evolution, which I'm sure I'm correct in assuming you think is 100% fact.[/QUOTE]

I've seen the theory of evolution proved scientifically several times on this board (even going into side issues with the theory).

Are you looking for some kind of proof beyond science?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Prove it. Prove it, and then reconcile that proof with the Theory of Evolution, which I'm sure I'm correct in assuming you think is 100% fact.[/QUOTE]

I'm kind of suprised to see you suggesting that homosexuality is a choice and evolution isn't true, so I'm not sure if you're joking.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm kind of suprised to see you suggesting that homosexuality is a choice and evolution isn't true, so I'm not sure if you're joking.[/QUOTE]

Logic indicates homosexuality is a choice, and until there's proof it isn't I'll go with logic. FWIW either way I don't really care as long as it isn't shoved in my face.

Evolution is a gray area. Some parts of that theory, like the process of natural selection, are pretty well proven. Other parts, such as the beginning of life and development of sex, have less than convincing scientific explanations at this time. I am skeptical of parts of the theory but open to further evidence.

But the real point was to point out how the existence of homosexuality seems to directly counterdict the well-established process of natural selection.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Logic indicates homosexuality is a choice, and until there's proof it isn't I'll go with logic. FWIW either way I don't really care as long as it isn't shoved in my face.[/quote]

How does logic it indicate it's a choice? When was the last time you decided which person to be attracted to? For the life of me I can't be attracted to the golden girls. I just can't do it. For a test, why don't you go and download some gay porno and see whether you can become aroused to the level that women would arouse you to. If you can do that then there's one of two answers. Either you are bisexual (in which case you would likely have previous incidences where you were attracted to men), or you actually did choose to be attracted to those men. If you aren't bisexual, and have never previously been attracted to a guy, then that really is something worth further investigation on.


Engaging in homosexuality, like any sex act, is a choice (though one that going against can result in major psychological issues). But attraction is not. I'm not sure what "proof" you want, no respectable scientist still proposes that homosexuality is a choice, as there is absolutely no evidence supporting that and plenty of evidence, including the psychological isses that homosexuals often face when trying to live as heterosexuals and the very low succes rates of groups dedicated to changing sexual preferences, to the contrary . Really the only "homosexuals" who go on to live normal, healthy, heterosexual, lives are the ones who were bisexual to begin with.

Evolution is a gray area. Some parts of that theory, like the process of natural selection, are pretty well proven. Other parts, such as the beginning of life and development of sex, have less than convincing scientific explanations at this time. I am skeptical of parts of the theory but open to further evidence.

But the real point was to point out how the existence of homosexuality seems to directly counterdict the well-established process of natural selection.
Click to expand...

It contradicts it no more than genetic predisposition to diseases (not saying that peoples genetics determine their sexuality, as this is unknown) and the like. And you can even find other non human animals who engage in homosexuality and bisexuality, and for long periods of time.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']How does logic it indicate it's a choice?[/quote]

Because through natural selection homosexuality, if it ever developed by mutation under the theory of evolution, would never ever be selected, and therefore not persist. So logic indicates it's a behavioral issue, and therefore a choice.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Because through natural selection homosexuality, if it ever developed by mutation under the theory of evolution, would never ever be selected, and therefore not persist. So logic indicates it's a behavioral issue, and therefore a choice.[/QUOTE]

Well, people could be carriers of the gene. Homosexuals have long engaged in heterosexual relationships due to societal norms (and still do), but a trait also does not have to be expressed to be present, or could be expressed as a mixture of multiple genes (most traits are polygenetic). Bisexuals of all species also would engage in sexual activity with both sexes and, if sexual orientation was genetic, they would likely pass on the genes that result in homosexuality. Also, most evidence suggests that sexuality is not an either/or thing, but exists on a continuum. The clear majority of people exist somewhere in between the extreme of absolute heterosexuality and absolute homosexuality. But there's also a lot more than goes into life than genetics. Environment has a tremendous effect, and not just in the traditional sense. Gay parents do not create gay children anymore than conservative christian parents do (even if the former is more likely to act on it), but environmental factors such as womb conditions, nutrition etc. all contribute to virtually every aspect of peoples lives. That's the same reason why someone can be genetically male but, due to the lack of testosterone, actually be female (or why males on estrogen may develop breasts). The difference is environmental, and the environment affected the biological. Most scientists believe a mixture of the two(environment and biological, which are often heavily intertwined) play a role. Again though, not environment in the traditional, everyday sense.
 
capt.llp12202031827.britain_france_europe_llp122.jpg

capt.llp11402031649.britain_prophet_drawings_llp114.jpg

capt.llp12602031854.britain_denmark_europe_llp126.jpg

massacre.jpg

cl65r

protest.jpg


Call for holy war at London demo
By Steve Bird and Daniel McGrory

MUSLIM protesters threatened more terrorist attacks as they converged in their hundreds outside the Danish Embassy in London yesterday for what organisers said was the start of a new holy war in Britain.
Parading banners that called for the killing of newspaper editors and broadcasters from the BBC who showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, they marched across the capital from the mosque in Regent’s Park after Friday prayers.

There were sporadic clashes with passers-by over chants praising the four British-born suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on three Underground trains and a London bus last July 7.

People who tried to snatch away what they regarded as offending placards were held back by police. Several members of the public tackled senior police officers guarding the protesters, demanding to know why they allowed banners that praised the “Magnificent 19” — the terrorists who hijacked the aircrafts used on September 11, 2001 — and others threatening further attacks on London.

The officers said that their role was to ensure public order and safety. Police had closed off main roads to allow the procession a clear route. Protesters screamed: “UK, you must pray — 7/7 is on its way.”

Organisers of the protest insisted that there would be more rallies over the weekend and predicted that British Muslims would lead the backlash against those mocking Islam.

The start of their campaign was in the heart of London’s most exclusive shopping enclave, where the Danish Embassy is squeezed between some of the most expensive designer stores in the capital. Banners made references to the British suicide bombers with slogans such as: “Europe, you will pay. Fantastic 4 are on their way.”

Anjem Choudary, one of the organisers, refused to condemn threats of another series of bombings on Britain. He said: “The fact is 7/7 was brought upon the people of London by the foreign policy of Tony Blair. He violated the sanctity of Muslims. He violated the covenant of security.

“If Muslims don’t feel safe and think they will be subject to arrest or deportation, if their houses are going to be raided, then there will be repercussions. There’s no reason why there will not be another suicide bombing.”

Penned in Sloane Street outside the Danish Embassy in the biting cold, the protesters vented their anger, but police said that the protest produced no arrests.
London Times

Meanwhile in Gaza, AM23's good friends call for cutting off the hands of illustrators of editorial cartoons by the 10's of thousands....

Clerics call for bloodshed

Anger spreads over depictions of prophet Muhammad in Danish press

The Los Angeles Times

(Feb 4, 2006)

Flags burned and protesters chanted from Europe to South Asia as outrage over satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad spread yesterday from the Pakistani parliament to the streets of Gaza to a meeting between Danish leaders and Muslim diplomats.

The cartoons reprinted this week in European newspapers lampoon Muhammad, with one showing him as a jihad warrior wearing a turban shaped like a bomb. The drawings, including one that quotes Muhammad as running out a virgins for his suicide bombers, have been condemned by imams as an attack on Islam.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with ambassadors from Middle East countries in an effort to calm the furor that began in September when the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten first published the cartoons. The 12 drawings have since appeared in newspapers across the continent, becoming emblems in a battle between Western values of free speech and Islamic reverence for the prophet.

"Neither the Danish government nor the Danish nation as such can be held responsible for drawings published in a Danish newspaper," Rasmussen said after the meeting with envoys. "A Danish government can never apologize on behalf of a free and independent newspaper ... This is basically a dispute between some Muslims and a newspaper."

The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark, Mona Omar Attiah, indicated that Rasmussen should do more to diffuse passions. "I want the prime minister to speak with Jyllands-Posten about getting them to give a real apology," she said after the meeting.

Danish flags have been burned and protests, some of them violent, have been staged at European institutions in Indonesia, Gaza, Afghanistan and other countries. Protesters marched yesterday in Baghdad, Iraq, and Tehran, Iran. Boycotts of Danish products across the Middle East.

European officials are concerned that Muslim anger could lead to extremist attacks, strain nuclear talks with Iran and further trouble relations with the newly elected militant Hamas party in the Palestinian territories. Sermons by religious and radical leaders called for bloodshed against the West. At a demonstration organized by Hamas tens of thousands of protesters marched, chanting: "Those responsible should have their hands cut off."

Hamilton (Canada) Spectator
 
I see those pictures and all I can think of in a way of response is what a sick disgusting, vile group of people they are.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, people could be carriers of the gene. Homosexuals have long engaged in heterosexual relationships due to societal norms (and still do), but a trait also does not have to be expressed to be present, or could be expressed as a mixture of multiple genes (most traits are polygenetic). Bisexuals of all species also would engage in sexual activity with both sexes and, if sexual orientation was genetic, they would likely pass on the genes that result in homosexuality. Also, most evidence suggests that sexuality is not an either/or thing, but exists on a continuum. The clear majority of people exist somewhere in between the extreme of absolute heterosexuality and absolute homosexuality. But there's also a lot more than goes into life than genetics. Environment has a tremendous effect, and not just in the traditional sense. Gay parents do not create gay children anymore than conservative christian parents do (even if the former is more likely to act on it), but environmental factors such as womb conditions, nutrition etc. all contribute to virtually every aspect of peoples lives. That's the same reason why someone can be genetically male but, due to the lack of testosterone, actually be female (or why males on estrogen may develop breasts). The difference is environmental, and the environment affected the biological. Most scientists believe a mixture of the two(environment and biological, which are often heavily intertwined) play a role. Again though, not environment in the traditional, everyday sense.[/QUOTE]

Taking the principle of natural selection, homosexuality or bisexuality should not exist in a genetic sense. Both traits are a drastic disadvantage in terms of reproductive capacity by their very nature. Natural selection dictates that whoever reproduces the most wins. You're telling me that over thousands of years "gay genes" could persist, given natural selection? It just doesn't make any sense. It's a behavioral choice, plain and simple.

[quote name='alonzo']Gay parents do not create gay children anymore than conservative christian parents do [/quote]

You do realize this in particular is a pretty dumb thing to say? Unless they are not really gay, there are no gay parents. Even if they were bisexual, they would be less likely to be parents, which goes back to my original point.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's a behavioral choice, plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

I never understood those who claimed that sexuality is both a choice and naturally ordered. That is, those who claim that we are naturally heterosexual all of the time, and that homosexuality is a choice (conscious or not) that deviates from the norm.

And the argument against a "gay gene" that you bring up is false on several fronts: it ignores the ol' 7th grade punnet (sp?) squares exercise, where we discovered how people could acquire "recessive" genetic traits from parents whose exhibited traits were both "dominant." In addition, it treats sexuality as a dichotomy, which is truly an absurd argument - only because of the social element of sexuality (is their a BDSM gene? a fisting gene? a "I wanna be on top" gene?), as well as the many permutations of sexuality.

Besides, we learn a great deal of our sexuality; that is not to deny the natural origin of sexuality, but, rather, to point out that many of us (if we define ourselves as vehemently heterosexual) would probably find many, many men who are attractive (Orlando Bloom, for instance), and many, many women who are not (Rosie O'Donnell and Helen Thomas come to mind). There are also those who prefer skinny, fat, tall, short - and that's without getting into the intricacies of preference for breast size, alignment, and whatnot.

Well, I'm going to stop there, before this delves into a Penthouse letter. In short, what you're arguing is too convenient and simultaneously untrue. Your argument of dichotomous sexuality suggests that you will always find only women attractive, and that includes all women - after all, it is genetically driven, right?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Taking the principle of natural selection, homosexuality or bisexuality should not exist in a genetic sense. Both traits are a drastic disadvantage in terms of reproductive capacity by their very nature. Natural selection dictates that whoever reproduces the most wins. You're telling me that over thousands of years "gay genes" could persist, given natural selection? It just doesn't make any sense. It's a behavioral choice, plain and simple.[/quote]

You just repeated what you said originally. You don't even appear to be responding to my post. I answered how that could occur but there seems no acknowledgement in your post that I said anything. It wasn't a very complicated argument. I'm not sure if you didn't understand it or what. I did not say there is a gay gene, I said it's unknown. I said there's recessive and dominant genes. I said most traits were polygenetic, very few things are 1-1, meaning multiple genes may combine to span the entire sexual spectrum. I mentioned how environmental conditions affect biology, and biology effects environmental conditions etc.. Practically everything I mentioned you didn't respond to. You don't even seem to understand the basics about genetics. I didn't expect you to agree, but I expected a response that mentioned my response.

As both myke and I said, sexuality is not either/or. Most people have various levels of attraction to both sexes. Most people have at least a few times been attracted to members of their own sex.

But I'm not sure how you are using choice. If you say someone actually choose to be gay that's absurd and insulting. It suggests that all homosexuals are lying when they say their sexual orientation is a choice, and that there's a big homosexual conspiracy. It suggests that people purposely engage in a lifestyle that for a long time was illegal and detested by society (therefore dangerous), and offered no benefits that a heterosexual lifestyle offered, only negatives. It also ignores the reality that you yourself can't choose to be attracted to a person or sex that you are not attracted to.

You do realize this in particular is a pretty dumb thing to say? Unless they are not really gay, there are no gay parents. Even if they were bisexual, they would be less likely to be parents, which goes back to my original point.
Click to expand...

Since when do parents only refer to biological ones? And homosexuals do enter heterosexual relationships due to societal norms and denial of their sexuality. Homosexuals also often use various forms of fertilization so at least one of the partners is a biological parent. And bisexuals would have been highly unlikely to engage in a long term homosexual relationships until relatively recently. A bisexual man, who could therefore have a fulfilling heterosexual relationship, in 18th century america isn't going to move in with his gay lover very often. And most gay men would have done the same, either repressing their orientation or having a lover on the side.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your argument of dichotomous sexuality suggests that you will always find only women attractive, and that includes all women - after all, it is genetically driven, right?[/QUOTE]

Curious that you end with this after quoting me saying it was a behavioral choice. But of course we are attracted to women as men through genetic programming. I don't know if studies are out there on this but it seems entirely unlikely that we would not be for reasons already discussed.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']As both myke and I said, sexuality is not either/or. Most people have various levels of attraction to both sexes. Most people have at least a few times been attracted to members of their own sex.[/quote]

Speak for yourself. Have you asked many people if they are attracted to members of their same sex?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']But I'm not sure how you are using choice. If you say someone actually choose to be gay that's absurd and insulting. It suggests that all homosexuals are lying when they say their sexual orientation is a choice, and that there's a big homosexual conspiracy. It suggests that people purposely engage in a lifestyle that for a long time was illegal and detested by society (therefore dangerous), and offered no benefits that a heterosexual lifestyle offered, only negatives. It also ignores the reality that you yourself can't choose to be attracted to a person or sex that you are not attracted to.[/quote]

Why is it insulting to have an opinion based on logic? Do you think gays are so insecure in their sexual behavior that they need to prove that it's genetic to be okay? Are you also insulted that there is a genetic basis for women being shorter and weaker than men?

If you feel people don't rationalize their actions you're very, very naive. I never said anything about a conspiracy, but people excuse their actions in many ways or rationalize them to the point of believing they take them for different reasons than the real reasons. "I don't need a cigarette; I can quit anytime." "She was asking for this when she dressed that way." Want some more examples?

No benefits other than engaging in a behavioral pattern you personally enjoy (I'd have to conclude). Why not ask Jews who survived the Holocaust why they didn't renounce their religion and become Protestant during that time?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Since when do parents only refer to biological ones?[/QUOTE]

When we're talking about reproduction.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Wasn't this thread about cartoons and such? :D[/QUOTE]

I think so...

Umm on that note, for some reason I can't quite grasp my pathetic stick figure is ranked 4th on drawmohammed:
http://www.drawmohammed.com/thumbnails-toprated-0.html

But, I'm sure by the time anyone sees this it would have taken its rightfull place which would be much lower, like last or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top