Shami Chakrabarti totally hit the nail on the head. There is a distinction between the legal right of being able to speak, and whether someone morally should say something offensive.

The muslim lawyer guy keeps asking things like "Should you publish nun ponography?" Of course you SHOULDN'T, but should you have the right to? Of course!

They should publish anti-jesus cartoons and watch how many people care. No one cares.

I don't get how Muslims like these can use freedom of speech so readily in public debates and protests and then act out against it.

Not sure about this one - it's very difficult drawing a line. The same hard core secularists who defend the Danish cartoons, the Pope, and the general right of many in the West to talk about Islam in an ignorant and offensive manner are usually the first to call for the conviction of those extremists who call for the deaths of the infidels. In reality the parameters of free speech are determined socially and politically by the most dominant group. No one really wants free speech - just freedom to say and hear what they want.

This isn't a debate. On one side you have human beings who believe in free speech and deserve to breathe and on the other side you have filth who should be burned alive. I call that a farce; the real people might as well be arguing with a virus.

And what's wrong with nun pornography?

It's easy to get mad and inflamed by the actions of the west when there is active political and military incursion in the middle east and the generally feeling that muslims are being prosecuted for their beliefs. Doesn't help when Bush used Biblical terms to label the conflicts.

We in the west enjoy the fact that our houses don't explode or that tanks don't roll through our neighbourhoods.

Turning a question of foreign policy decisions by the US and the UK into some kind of debate about the differing levels of acceptance of free speech is a over simplification of the real situation. There was large support for the US forces in Iraq before the ill-fated Baathist purge and dissolution backfired into a full scale sectarian violence with radicalized terrorist elements.

Active military aggression would only radicalize the region more under the corrupt fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran which is used as a political tool to gain wider support through unity of common held beliefs, but skewing them with radicalized holy war against the West. Exactly how that is a question of free speech or not I don't know really.

The muslim person they picked is a poor representation of the community I know. For some real islamic positions on terrorism and such see the American Muslim Association website @ http://www.al-amana.org/, the pamphlets section.

But the question has to be asked, is the administration acting rationally with words like Islamofacists are used in the same way the word Communist was in the Cold War? Or is it a perpetual war against a monolithic enemy on the scale of the Soviet Union which was sold by the CIA as a greater threat then it turned out to be, rotting from the inside? Only now there is no collapse to ever be seen. The terrorist forces can forever be created, reappear, reform.

'Gorillaman' - your ignorance and hate sickens me to the pit of my stomach. To dismiss those who disagree with what you say or believe and refer to them as 'filth who should be burned alive' is appauling. You are no better than those you seek to condemn!!! I suggest that the moderators of this sight caution you for voicing such vile and hateful opinions.

Gorillaman, why? I believe in complete freedom of speach, but to be valid you need to back up your believes, because to me you come across as a racist. Are you?

Hate is the correct attitude for the monstrous usurpers robbing decent people of our hard-won civilisation. Free speech is a fundamental human right loved by all human beings and, lest I'm accused of hypocrisy, not applicable to the kind of crack-brained mutants we see on the video or protesting those trivial bloody cartoons.

I don't know why I should come across as a racist Nicky, I'm judging people based on their beliefs not their colour.

You are generalising, painting a whole relgion with the same brush. Would you say all christians hate the jews because they were the people said to have killed jesus? I think all religion is rubbish, I say this because I have free speach, so I must ley others have their say. But hatred is just nasty. Maybe get to know some muslims before you pass judgement on a whole creed.

Gorillaman - "Hate is the correct attitude" - what a load of rubbish! It's that same kind of blind ignorant misguided hate which you espouse that drives people to kill and maim those with different opinions and beliefs. You claim to support freedom of speech but then refer to those who disagree with you as inhuman and monstrous and then advocate that they 'be burned alive'. That's a strange kind of freedom of speech. In reality you are an intolerant bigot. You don't really support freedom of speech - just freedom for you and your ilk to hate those unlike you.

You've got me all wrong Nicky. I am objecting here to the opponents of free speech, not all Muslims. Now I should probably say that I do have a problem with Muslims and all theists, but once again in the context of this discussion I am opposed solely to the people inexplicably and inexcusably arguing for the suppression of material that offends their religious sensibilities. Most Muslims do not take that position.

Gwaan, I don't endorse the extension of human rights to non-humans, no. And I never said I believe in freedom of thought; those who disagree with me on this particular issue (free speech) do indeed deserve to die screaming.

Gorillaman - once again you show your true colours by using phrases like 'non-humans'. Unfortunately vile hateful people like yourself are currently dictating the foreign policy of many countries in this world - be they secular, Christian, Jewish or Muslim. The path to peace and stability lies through dialogue - not bitter hate-ridden invective. You claim not to be a racist - but you are just as bigoted as any racist I have met. Freedom of speech is an important freedom - a fundamental right. But like all rights it comes hand in hand with a responsibility - a responsibility to exercise that right judiciously. Freedom of speech means that you can call people 'non-humans' and call for their death, but responsibility of speech means that one shouldn't.

You're suddenly in favour of free speech?

I have always been in favour of free speech - my charge is that you and your ilk claim to be, but in reality are not. Your reaction to those who disagree with you is the same as those who protested against the Danish cartoons. Freedom of speech means that I can be insulting to Muslims, Jews, anyone. But good judgment teaches me that at a time when there is a great deal of animosity between the Islamic world and the West (due in a large part to the aggressive militaristic and self-serving presence of Western soldiers in the Middle East, combined with the unjust and uncritical support of Israel against the Palestinians) I shouldn't.

You're not in favour of free speech at all; you were only just appealing to the mods to discipline me for the opinion I expressed, before that you suggested "it's very difficult drawing a line" between what is and isn't acceptable speech.

Presumably you, like too many people, believe in some kind of 'limited free speech', which is ridiculous. Absolute free speech is the only acceptable condition to a reasonable person, and those who would impose conditions on it for whatever preposterous reason are the enemies of any legitimate society.

I agree with your views on free speech gorillaman, but you use it to express hatred. I think gwaan is also saying absolute free speech is right, but that is must be balanced with common sence. Surly anyone who would condemn the many over the actions of the very few are abusing free speech. It is turning a fundermental right into a weapon against freedom and tolerance. I will make it clear again that I do not agree with religion as all are absolute in their beliefs, but all have the right to say they have those beliefs. These arguments are being propigated by people for their own gain to the detrement to us all. Please show tolerance and make a stand against those who would in their own ignorance let free speech die.

Well said Nicky P!

Gorillaman - I do believe in absolute free speech as an ideal. But in reality you will not find a single civil society in the world that does not impose some limits on freedom of speech - normally for the sake of maintaining the stability and cohesion of the civilization that you are so keen to defend. For example, take videosift as an example of a society. Members of that society are free to post whatever video they wish in the spirit of free speech. But there are limits on this freedom. Rule 2 of the videosift the posting guidelines states "Please do not post videos that make fun of other races.". Similarly Rule 3 states states that "We do not want pornography or "snuff" films (in which people die)." Do you really want to defend the right of people to post snuff films, child pornography, and racist propoganda? In reality - even you believe in some limits to free speech. And yes, what you think is acceptable may be very different from what an orthodox Muslim believes. Social consensus will determine the boundaries of free speech. But consensus can only be achieved through CIVILIZED diaogue.

I wish people wouldn't discuss concepts like hatred, extremism, intolerance and bigotry as if they're automatically a bad thing. Anybody who's in the right must necessarily be an extremist and should be intolerant. I can't endure this modern fantasy where everybody has a right to their opinion and every opinion is equal.

"I do believe in absolute free speech as an ideal." There's the root of it; I'm an idealist.

So you're an idealist Gorillaman. Well I'm a realist with ideals. I believe in the ideal of free speech but know that demands of reality, of society, of peace, mean that it will always remain an ideal.

You start off sounding like an idealist: "Anybody who's in the right must necessarily be an extremist and should be intolerant." Rhetoric similar in style and substance to that employed by most of the world's major hate groups. But if you're an idealist - then freedom of speech isn't one of the ideals you aspire to. You cannot possibly advocate free speech and then claim that you "can't endure this modern fantasy where everybody has a right to their opinion" - that's exactly what free speech is!!

So it's clear from your own words that you're against free speech. So which ideals do you aspire to? In your own words: "hatred, extremism, intolerance and bigotry".

Freedom of speech does not mean that everybody's opinion should be respected or heard. Everyone can very well shout his opinion on every rooftop, that does not mean we should pay any attention to it. Everyone has a right to express their opinion, not to bother everyone else with it (just as you can punch in the air all you want but you can't punch others, except in self-defense). Nor does having an opinion means it has to be represented equally in a debate, especially if it is up against scientific facts.

Also, please note that freedom of speech does not mean you can incite people to do your bidding or whims, whether it's emptying a theater by shouting "Fire!" or using propaganda to lead the ignorant masses into a war on false pretenses. This amounts to a form of mental coercion and thus violence (if you do not succeed, it is still attempted coercion). You can say people should not draw cartoons of Muhammad, but you cannot do anything or incite to do anything that would restrict the freedom of expression of those that draw the cartoons. And like I just said, you have no intrinsic right to have this stupid (in my, and most of the western world, opinion) opinion heard, only to express it.

Another form of what may be considered speech that is "restricted" in some country is defamation, which is basically lying in order to hurt someone else's reputation or status. This is also a covert form of incitation (to distrust) and thus violence. As defamation cannot be used in self-defense (you have no credibility left when defamed), it is always unlawful use of force.

This argumentation is based on the assumption that you cannot do violence upon someone else except in self-defense. Thus freedom of speech is absolute and in no way restricted in and of itself, just as "freedom of bodily movement" would not be. Of course, not all forms of incitations are coercive, but those that are should be punished as are other uses of unlawful violence. If you do not see why restricting coercive speech is not the same as restricting speech itself, I cannot help you: go take a course in logic (hint: coercion(violence) and speech are two different "things" or concepts, though they sometimes overlap).

There's no contradiction there. I've already told you I don't believe in extending the human right of freedom of speech to baboons, gerbils, miscellaneous vegetables or subhuman retards. It really comes back to my first post here; you can grant, in your munificence, a virus Free Speech tra-la-la but that doesn't mean it's going to have anything meaningful to say. Debating something like Imran Khan is an entirely absurd situation, his kind (morons) are a pest at best and a global disaster at worst, depriving human beings like me of valuable resources and imposing on our way of life. Their place is to be controlled, exterminated or put to use but never, ever, to be considered anything more than they are - filth.

And I still don't know what's wrong with nun porn.

You're applying the situation only to Imran Khan and his ilk but think of your own arguments when it comes to issues of racism? Let's say tomorrow the KKK rallies in Washington DC for a cross burning would you defend their right to express their hate against another race? Because in your lines of arguement they would be just and so would the Nazi with their hatred of the Jews.

The popular rise of extremist muslims is not only due to propaganda but to the rise of military and political intervention in the West. When you have tanks rolling down your streets it's easy to be inflamed towards hate of the west, they are directly affected by it. How you would rationalize that activity just by saying "Oh they are all subhuman and their hate is misplaced" is ridiculous. The military and political intervention in the middle east is what exactly the global disaster, depriving human beings like you of valuable resources and imposing on your way of life by allowing radicalized hate to gain foothold because they create the right enviroment for that hate to rise.

Historically this is exactly how a mad man was allowed to rise in Germany. When another power imposes on the political and economic way of life. After the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. In Iran that is how a popular elected was deposed by the CIA, leading to the Islamic revoluition and radicalization of hate against the US. The US then supported extremist Saddam Hussein in a prolonged war against Iran. Is it so hard to see why people are mad at the West? At the UK involved in all of this? There is no escape we pay for the sins of our fathers. It's time we acknowledge that in our national policy decisions allowing us to make realistic decisions beyond the abuse of power. Where have the tenants of the cold war intelligence gone in favor of naked aggression?

You are simplifying this geopolitical issue to black and white in a real world of grey.

The problem here is I've allowed two separate issues to get mixed up. 1) free speech for all, 2) people who should be burned alive. The important thing is it's redundant applying 1) to 2), whether they deserve it or not (I don't think they do).
Your KKK example is exactly the same as the one I've been talking about so far, human beings are defined by their rationality and their position is utterly irrational. So they should be burned and let's not worry about the rest of it. But if we imagine for a moment that the KKK's membership do deserve to exist and look at free speech only then, yes, they would have the right to hold a cross-burning in Washington. That's what unfettered free speech means.

There's no excuse for mal-thought. I don't care if President Bush knocks on your door every morning and punches your child in the face, that's no cause to try to inflict dirty religious hang-ups on decent people. So Islam has some preposterous prohibition on pictures of its prophets*, it also has that thing where they only eat with their right hand. Should we all join in with that one? But eating with your left hand is offensive to Islam! It's not my fault Muslims are bloody stupid, I didn't make them stupid and I won't be forced into making allowances for their stupidity. Those in less progressed societies can be forgiven to some extent but inexcusable are people in the west who still refuse to think properly despite being given every opportunity.



*Alliteration is never the answer. Bad gorillaman, bad.

Gorillaman - you're an ignorant offensive fool. Your knowledge of Islam is non-existent and your pitifully weak arguments show that you are no champion of reason.

I could take deep personal offense when you say things like "It's not my fault Muslims are bloody stupid, I didn't make them stupid and I won't be forced into making allowances for their stupidity." However instead I choose to pity you.

You no nothing of Islam. You are informed only by prejudice and what you have read in the Western press. I have studied Islam, Shari'ah law and Arabic, for many years and do not recognise the inflexible homogenous unthinking Islam you seek to condemn. I have lived and traveled extensively in the Islamic world and I have rarely encountered people as bigoted as you.

Instead of condemning Muslims why don't you try talking to them. Hate destroys people, dialogue brings them closer together.

I only just noticed Bidouleroux's post; it's very sensible.

Gwaan, god damn it, it's not my job to go around doing in depth research on ideas where the most cursory examination reveals them to be bullshit. I know about the five pillars at least, and they're all retarded.

As for pitifully weak arguments, have I even been making arguments? I think I've just been trying to clarify my position for your edification. What arguments would you like me to make?

great post by bidouleroux
the thread itself is turning into dan ackroyd/jane curtin, though . . .

"gorillaman, you ignorant slut!"

Gorillaman

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنَّا خَلَقْنَاكُم مِّن ذَكَرٍ وَأُنثَى وَجَعَلْنَاكُمْ شُعُوباً
وَقَبَائِلَ لِتَعَارَفُوا إِنَّ أَكْرَمَكُمْ عِندَ اللَّهِ أَتْقَاكُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ
خَبِير

"O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another." (Qur'an 49:13)

As I said before instead of condemning Muslims why don't you try talking to them. Hate destroys people, dialogue brings them closer together.

But if you are still not convinced then:

لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِين

"To you be your Way, and to me mine." (Qur'an 109:6)

I hope you do learn more about Islam in the future and temper your ill-informed views. However if you choose to remain ignorant then it may just be that:

لاَ يُكَلِّفُ اللّهُ نَفْساً إِلاَّ وُسْعَهَا

"God does not burden a person with what is beyond his capacity." (Q. 2:286)

I guess this is where we drop it. Works for me.

Gorillaman had two very positive and amazing points:

1) There is nothing wrong with nun pornography.
2) Alliteration is bad.

But of course, everyone involved had good points. This post has some great comments by all involved and ended the only way this argument could end: stalemate. Thanks for the entertainment.

Great comments. Well done.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by mauz15.

rasch187 has fixed this video's dead embed code - no Power Points awarded because rasch187's points are already fully charged.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.