ROP Update: We're Here to Control Your Speech, Your Thoughts and Expression

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
CARTOON CRISIS: ARAB AMBASSADORS TO SPAIN CALL FOR CODE OF CONDUCT

Madrid, 15 Feb. (AKI) - The council of Arab ambassadors in Spain has called for a code of conduct to prevent offence to religions of the kind caused to Islam by the publication of Danish-originated satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in over a dozen countries worldwide - while respecting freedom of speech.

The ambassadors from Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Sudan and Kuwait, also "strongly condemned" the violent protests that have taken place across several continents, staged by Muslims outraged at the cartoons. These have resulted in the deaths of at least 18 people.

Arab ambassadors to Austria and the United Nations in Vienna on Tuesday expressed their displeasure at "the desecration of the Holy symbols of Islam" and its negative effect on Muslim-Western relations. They outlined three ways forward out of the crisis: making hatred a criminal offence like discrimination and racism; encouraging the European Union to pass blasphemy legislation with penal sanctions for those who infringe this; and "remedial action" to nurture the "special and good" relations between European states and the Arab and Islamic world.

Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was on Wednesday scheduled with the main representatives of UCIDE, FEERI and other local Muslim organisations at his office to discuss the crisis over cartoons and the premier's Alliance of Civilisations plan.

Zapatero last year proposed - together with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan - an alliance between the Western and Muslim worlds which was widely praised by Muslims here.

(Rak/Ajd/Aki)
Adnkronos International
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']They outlined three ways forward out of the crisis: making hatred a criminal offence like discrimination and racism; encouraging the European Union to pass blasphemy legislation with penal sanctions for those who infringe this; and "remedial action" to nurture the "special and good" relations between European states and the Arab and Islamic world.[/QUOTE]

I'd be satisfied with efforts taken on the last component, but the other two are efforts to cut off free speech. Perhaps they can try this in Italy, where the media is so up the ass of Berlusconi they make Fox News look like The Nation.

I think something dramatic needs to happen to repair muslim/western relations, and smarmy comments about the "religion of peace," and your total indifference to their well-being ("I don't care if they're ground up into Alpo," or something akin to that) isn't doing that any favors. However, capitulating to the interests of a religious organization? Feh.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I see PAD has adopted the racist cartoon as his new avatar.

I guess arabs are officially the new niggers.[/QUOTE]

No, just PAD.
 
Okay, PAD.....and now denounce the FCC's actions under Bush to clamp down on so-called "obscenity," actions backed by the Religious Right.

After all, isn't the Bush FCC acting to "Control Your Speech, Your Thoughts and Expression" on behalf of one particular religion?
 
Gee dennis! What an anology!

I didn't realize the right to show tits, ass, pussy, swear l ike a sailor, ability to simulated or real sex over the airwaves any time of day or night was a guaranteed human right! I learn something every day here.

Do you really think the FCC just started cracking down on indecency after Janet Jackson's wardrome malfunction? Well then why was Howard Stern peddling a "Crucified by the FCC" box set in 1992? Why, why, why.... that was before Bush was President! How can that be!

Please bring us supporting evidence where the FCC was asked by anybody to impose prison sentences on broadcasters.

In the interim STFU and sit down little boy. The world is run by grown ups who know difference between real threats to society and religous imperialism and non-issues like Howard Stern being able to say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocsucker, motherfucker, tits. Apparently you don't.
 
Remember, kids:
jesus_saves.gif
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Gee dennis! What an anology!

I didn't realize the right to show tits, ass, pussy, swear l ike a sailor, ability to simulated or real sex over the airwaves any time of day or night was a guaranteed human right! I learn something every day here.

Do you really think the FCC just started cracking down on indecency after Janet Jackson's wardrome malfunction? Well then why was Howard Stern peddling a "Crucified by the FCC" box set in 1992? Why, why, why.... that was before Bush was President! How can that be!

Please bring us supporting evidence where the FCC was asked by anybody to impose prison sentences on broadcasters.

In the interim STFU and sit down little boy. The world is run by grown ups who know difference between real threats to society and religous imperialism and non-issues like Howard Stern being able to say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocsucker, motherfucker, tits. Apparently you don't.[/QUOTE]

1st time I've seen PAD lose his cool, it really doesnt make you seem ignorant.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I see PAD has adopted the racist cartoon as his new avatar.

.[/QUOTE]

You really want to see PAD lose his cool? Put a certain fat guy as your avatar.

while maked "hatred" a crimminal offense is asinine, their displeasure of the desecration of the Holy Symbols is Islam is not unlike the "War on Christmas".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Gee dennis! What an anology!

I didn't realize the right to show tits, ass, pussy, swear l ike a sailor, ability to simulated or real sex over the airwaves any time of day or night was a guaranteed human right! I learn something every day here.

Do you really think the FCC just started cracking down on indecency after Janet Jackson's wardrome malfunction? Well then why was Howard Stern peddling a "Crucified by the FCC" box set in 1992? Why, why, why.... that was before Bush was President! How can that be!

Please bring us supporting evidence where the FCC was asked by anybody to impose prison sentences on broadcasters.

In the interim STFU and sit down little boy. The world is run by grown ups who know difference between real threats to society and religous imperialism and non-issues like Howard Stern being able to say shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocsucker, motherfucker, tits. Apparently you don't.[/QUOTE]

PAD, if you are advocating free speech, then you are advocating ALL free speech. You don't get to draw lines about what speech should be free, or make distinctions like jail time versus financial ruin of private companies through huge fines. You must defend "Piss Christ" and Howard Stern just as vehemently as you defend caricatures of Muhammed. Otherwise you aren't talking about free speech, you're talking about allowing just the speech that you happen to like.

In fact, one could argue that under current U.S. law -- which does set limits on speech that incites violence or causes injury, like yelling fire in a crowded theater -- the Muhammed cartoons are a lot less easy to legally justify than Howard Stern's show, which as far as I know has caused not a single riot anywhere.

As far as your talk of "grown-ups" and "little boys" and shutting the fuck up, I think your overreaction to my reasonable query has clearly demonstrated your own emotional maturity.

Thank you for making my points for me, PAD. It makes arguing with you much, much easier.
 
Dennis, I could care less about Piss Christ, what Howard Stern says, full frontal nudity on Cinemax, Playboy or the like. I'm not one for censorship at all.

However what we're talking about here is Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Sudan and Kuwait dictating their moral systems, their religous beliefs, their societal norms to another country. What rights do they have to ask Spain or any other EU country to set up prison times for blasphemy?

The debates we have with the FCC and indecency over the air aren't comparable. We're not being dictated to by another country. The debate is within citizens of one country about the society they belong to and are part of.

Are you going to try and equate the voters of the U.S. asking their government to represent them in a fashion they deem appropriate to 17 countries going to a soverign nation and asking them "Prison time for blasphemers!". Is that the reasonable, logical leap you want to make?

You really think the two are equivilent?
 
[quote name='usickenme']You really want to see PAD lose his cool? Put a certain fat guy as your avatar.

while maked "hatred" a crimminal offense is asinine, their displeasure of the desecration of the Holy Symbols is Islam is not unlike the "War on Christmas".[/QUOTE]

Except that the "War on Christmas" didn't result in riots and death.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Dennis, I could care less about Piss Christ, what Howard Stern says, full frontal nudity on Cinemax, Playboy or the like. I'm not one for censorship at all.

However what we're talking about here is Lebanon, Mauritania, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Yemen, Sudan and Kuwait dictating their moral systems, their religous beliefs, their societal norms to another country. What rights do they have to ask Spain or any other EU country to set up prison times for blasphemy?

The debates we have with the FCC and indecency over the air aren't comparable. We're not being dictated to by another country. The debate is within citizens of one country about the society they belong to and are part of.

Are you going to try and equate the voters of the U.S. asking their government to represent them in a fashion they deem appropriate to 17 countries going to a soverign nation and asking them "Prison time for blasphemers!". Is that the reasonable, logical leap you want to make?

You really think the two are equivilent?[/QUOTE]

Free speech is free speech, PAD.

I don't agree with either example of censorship we are talking about. I think both are oppressive and take away from the marketplace of ideas.

But I do want it understood you can't be for one and against the other if you are truly an advocate of freedom of speech, and not just someone latching onto an opportunity to religion-bash. Both are attempts to stifle free speech, and both are reprehensible.

And thank you for the more civil tone of your follow-up. I think our discussions here are much more productive without name-calling or insults.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']Except that the "War on Christmas" didn't result in riots and death.[/QUOTE]

duh....Really??

Well obviously I was talking in broad strokes there. There are dozens of levels where the analogy falls aparts (like the Christians talking about their displeasure within their own country for one).

However, the big picture of persecution complex inherent to religion remains.

(and the initial reaction to the cartoons was quite similar to the reactions to the "war on x-mas"- peaceful protests and calls for respect and change.)
 
So let's see....

People asking not to have to worry about free channels NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and PBS airing explicit programming is the same as 17 of the 22 Arab governments telling a soverign EU nation that they should outlaw blasphemy, jail those responsible for such a "crime", and "remedial action" be given to those who offend said religion.

So dennis you're equating re-education efforts (Oh hell, you're liberal! Re-education camps are something your kind are completely used to shoving upon others!), state sanctioned oppression of dissent (Oh yes, like in those nice progressive nations of the DPRK, GDR, USSR.), and jail time for those who disagree with the protected minority (Just like the party leaders and party members in your dear, dear progressive nations.) so all of this.......

is just another way of saying the FCC shouldn't censor a boob on TV because really.....

they're the same thing.
 
[quote name='KrAzY3']"blasphemy legislation"

Jesus fucking christ kill me now[/QUOTE]

What do you think the old "blue" laws were?
 
[quote name='usickenme']What do you think the old "blue" laws were?[/QUOTE]

To keep people from buying Redd Foxx cassettes at truckstops?
 
[quote name='evanft']Remember, kids:
jesus_saves.gif
[/QUOTE]

Not bad. Didn't know Jesus was that good a keeper. Too bad Israel didn't qualify for the World Cup.
 
[quote name='usickenme']What do you think the old "blue" laws were?[/QUOTE]

A blue law, in the United States and Canada, is a type of law restricting activities or sales of goods on Sunday, which had its roots in accommodating Christian Sunday worship, although it persists to this day more as a matter of tradition. The term blue law may have been first used by Reverend Samuel Peters in his book General History of Connecticut, which was first published in 1781, to refer to various laws first enacted by Puritan colonies in the 17th century which prohibited the selling of certain types of merchandise and retail or business activity of any kind on certain days of the week (usually Sunday). In Texas, for example, blue laws prohibited selling housewares such as pots, pans, and washing machines on Sunday until 1985; Texas as well as Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Many U.S. states still prohibit selling alcohol on Sunday, or at least before noon on Sunday. Many unusual features of American culture — such as the fact that one can buy groceries, office supplies, and housewares from a drug store — are the result of blue laws, as drug stores were generally allowed to remain open on Sunday to accommodate emergency medical needs. The ubiquitous "weekend" is also a result of blue laws, although it is practiced nearly worldwide, except in some Islamic countries which have their weekend on Thursday and Friday.
Link

Yep, it's right there clear as day. Blasphemers will go to jail and be re-educated.

Wait.....

Er......

Uhm......









Nevermind.
 
I am shocked - shocked - that a group of Islamic fundamentalists want to limit free speech. Most religious fundamentalists never have such radical anti-free speech proposals.

cough *Hustler v. Falwell* cough

At least this country isn't run by a fundamentalist. Oh wait...
 
[quote name='camoor']I am shocked - shocked - that a group of Islamic fundamentalists want to limit free speech. Most religious fundamentalists never have such radical anti-free speech proposals.

cough *Hustler v. Falwell* cough

At least this country isn't run by a fundamentalist. Oh wait...[/QUOTE]

Your reading comprehension isn't what you think it is.

We aren't talking about a few fundamendalists. If we were, it's hardly newsworthy.

We're talking 17 fully accredited ambassadors of 17 nations making these desires known to the Spanish government in an official capacity. We're not talking about nuts in a mosque. This is as an official diplomatic request as exists in international politics.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

Yep, it's right there clear as day. Blasphemers will go to jail and be re-educated.

Wait.....

Er......

Uhm......









Nevermind.[/QUOTE]

thanks for proving my point, fatts. The "punishment" may be different. (fines) but the intent is the same.

Although to be honest I don't see anything about re-education. Swing and miss.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Your reading comprehension isn't what you think it is.

We aren't talking about a few fundamendalists. If we were, it's hardly newsworthy.

We're talking 17 fully accredited ambassadors of 17 nations making these desires known to the Spanish government in an official capacity. We're not talking about nuts in a mosque. This is as an official diplomatic request as exists in international politics.[/QUOTE]

Many of the nations these ambassadors represent are strongly Muslim, I don't know the religion of their ambassadors but let's just say I wouldn't be surprised to find that they have as rigid a world view as Our Leader.

So they want to limit free speech - our country wants to limit free speech in the name of dubious national security concerns (read: political embarrassment concerns) and common decency, Europe limits free speech as well (example: you can't deny the holocaust in Germany).

Muslim fundamentalists piss me off and I think that all people who truly love freedom should buy more Havarti and not resort to calling fruit-filled pastries something idiotic like 'Mohammad treats'. I must admit that I get angry when I see these militant ignorant a-holes killing 8 year-old kids and burning American flags, but I'm not going to pretend that USA doesn't have a-holes that are just as ignorant, or that our current leadership is any more enlightened then these ambassadors on subjects like 'peace' and 'diplomacy'.

I don't know what can be done with people that are attacking American/European business fronts, starting riots that end up in the death of women and children, and making fundraising drives for suicide bombers all over a bunch of silly cartoons. What a mess - how do you protect an embassy over there. This is a culture war pure and simple - if any European government comes down against free speech I will denounce it outright - I'd rather have to fight a violent riot led by ignorant thugs then give up the right to free speech. That having been said, personally I don't see the need to keep republishing the images - why beat a dead horse - it's not like the lame parodies are going to get any funnier.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So let's see....

People asking not to have to worry about free channels NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and PBS airing explicit programming is the same as 17 of the 22 Arab governments telling a soverign EU nation that they should outlaw blasphemy, jail those responsible for such a "crime", and "remedial action" be given to those who offend said religion.

So dennis you're equating re-education efforts (Oh hell, you're liberal! Re-education camps are something your kind are completely used to shoving upon others!), state sanctioned oppression of dissent (Oh yes, like in those nice progressive nations of the DPRK, GDR, USSR.), and jail time for those who disagree with the protected minority (Just like the party leaders and party members in your dear, dear progressive nations.) so all of this.......

is just another way of saying the FCC shouldn't censor a boob on TV because really.....

they're the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Are you for free speech or not, PAD? It's a simple question. And if you answer yes, then you have to be against both forms of censorship.

Is one more egregious than the other? Yes. Are both assaults on free speech? Absolutely. Would someone concerned with free speech denounce both? Certainly.

So answer the question: Are you for free speech?
 
Free speech and indecency are not the same thing dennis.

Networks and radio stations can broadcast anything they wish. Now, they may face fines, they may face license challenges but they have the freedom of speech you're addressing. They don't want to face fines, they don't want to face license challenges so the bottom line is they don't broadcast blatantly indecent material and face consequence of that.

I don't think the FCC should have any say over programming content. However if during the licensing period someone makes a substantial claim why a broadcast owner should not be allowed to renew a license because of their programming are you going to call that censorship or limitation of free speech?

One of the mandates of an FCC licensee is to act on the best interests of the community it serves. If a station decides to air paid programming or HSN 24 hours a day are they meeting the best interests of the community? What value does that provide? If a station airs uncut R or unrated movies 24/7 are they serving a community interest?

Discussing the rights of broadcasters is not as cut and dry as you're for free speech or you're not. The license stipulations of all broadcasters were really set up by the Communications Act of 1934 and ammended under the telecom act of 1996. The 1934 statute set up the current license agreements. The 1996 act set up ownership changes where you could own a tv/radio/newspaper in the same market or own 1,000+ radio stations.

So if you want to take issue with the practicality of freedom of speech for broadcasters blame the Democratic Congress in session during 1934 and FDR. This is not a new thing it's been in place for 4 generations.

I still think you're brain dead for equating 17 or the 22 Arab ambassadors to Spain requesting jail time and re-education for blasphemers of Islam and being able to say cocksucker on free TV.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Free speech and indecency are not the same thing dennis.

Networks and radio stations can broadcast anything they wish. Now, they may face fines, they may face license challenges but they have the freedom of speech you're addressing. They don't want to face fines, they don't want to face license challenges so the bottom line is they don't broadcast blatantly indecent material and face consequence of that.

I don't think the FCC should have any say over programming content. However if during the licensing period someone makes a substantial claim why a broadcast owner should not be allowed to renew a license because of their programming are you going to call that censorship or limitation of free speech?

One of the mandates of an FCC licensee is to act on the best interests of the community it serves. If a station decides to air paid programming or HSN 24 hours a day are they meeting the best interests of the community? What value does that provide? If a station airs uncut R or unrated movies 24/7 are they serving a community interest?

Discussing the rights of broadcasters is not as cut and dry as you're for free speech or you're not. The license stipulations of all broadcasters were really set up by the Communications Act of 1934 and ammended under the telecom act of 1996. The 1934 statute set up the current license agreements. The 1996 act set up ownership changes where you could own a tv/radio/newspaper in the same market or own 1,000+ radio stations.

So if you want to take issue with the practicality of freedom of speech for broadcasters blame the Democratic Congress in session during 1934 and FDR. This is not a new thing it's been in place for 4 generations.

I still think you're brain dead for equating 17 or the 22 Arab ambassadors to Spain requesting jail time and re-education for blasphemers of Islam and being able to say cocksucker on free TV.[/QUOTE]

Actually, indecency and free speech are intimately linked, PAD, as indecency is used by the federal government to routinely quash free speech. And since no definition of "indecency" is ever forthcoming, the feds can use it however they like.

And while I agree the airwaves are public property and should be licensed, I think that in recent times the Religious Right has used that arrangement to advance their own agenda. Why are they the folks to determine the best interests of the community? Why are they speaking for me? What is the "best interest" of the community? Perhaps more people should get actively involved in this process, but that's not really the point of this discussion, is it?

Furthermore, I see a clear line from limiting free speech in regard to "dirty words" to putting people in jail for blaspheming Islam or Christianity. Go to a revival and ask the folks there if they would like the law to require jail time for people who make fun of Jesus Christ in a cartoon. You start setting limits on free speech based on one groups preference, and where do you stop?

Lastly, I'm disappointed at the return of the name-calling, PAD. Such juvenile tactics do not advance your argument as much as they make you seem weak and defensive. I would rather debate your ideas, as they are both well-thought-out and worthy of debate, than indulge in an exchange of insults.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top