Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

all you're trying to do is make a cheap anti democrat political point like you did in the last three threads.

It is sort of his schtick here. A tired, trollish schtick to be sure, but hey, when the mods ride shotgun for you why not run with it?

 CT GAMER wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

all you're trying to do is make a cheap anti democrat political point like you did in the last three threads.

It is sort of his schtick here. A tired, trollish schtick to be sure, but hey, when the mods ride shotgun for you why not run with it?

Trollish like every post you've made so far tonight?

Now now ladies, remember love thy neighbor, unless its Frazzled, then stay the hell off his lawn!

That dog looks way too pleased. Only on a Dachshund.

 Frazzled wrote:
Now now ladies, remember love thy neighbor, unless its Frazzled, then stay the hell off his lawn!

I see your weiner pic and raise you this:


The horror...

Well...I am for sure avoiding Frazz lawn...his weiner dogs look quite capable of making lethal IED's that might be devastating on the sensory organ....and boots....

edit
Dang...I've heard of being so hungry one would bite the arse end of rhino off...but a weiner...with Michelle looking trying to figure out WTH he is biting off.....

 Jihadin wrote:
Well...I am for sure avoiding Frazz lawn...his weiner dogs look quite capable of making lethal IED's that might be devastating on the sensory organ....and boots....

You have no idea...

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Now now ladies, remember love thy neighbor, unless its Frazzled, then stay the hell off his lawn!

I see your weiner pic and raise you this:


The horror...

That wouldn't bet the first butt Obama's kissed!

 Frazzled wrote:

See jihadin's post. However there would be a hearing and I think it would be quashed. Plus the Egyptians have to pursue extradition. That would and should get messy very fast.

Just the concept of an arrest warrant for US citizens exercising their right to free speech to make a craptacular film in the US puts me off completely. What if Shuma goes off on the intranets and the government of Outer Botslavia get PO'd tracks his IP and pursues action in the US? Seriously?

Well then I'll get right on inciting to riot.

Welcome to the modern world.

Freedom of speech is all very well, but with freedom comes responsibility.

This film was specifically made to insult muslims - in the full knowledge that historically that always leads to violence. the deaths of the Embassy staff in Libya are just as much the fault of the people who made this film as they are the fault of the actual individuals who attacked them.

What's worse, is that they've put many more lives at risk - the actors and most of the crew involved had no idea that the film they were making was about Islam - the script was different and the dialogue was all re-dubbed after the fact. Now those people are in fear for their lives:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html

I'm pretty sure that this film was made specifically in order to incite violence in the middle east. That's not freedom of speech - that's conspiracy to commit murder, albeit by proxy.

pgmason wrote:
Freedom of speech is all very well, but with freedom comes responsibility.

This film was specifically made to insult muslims - in the full knowledge that historically that always leads to violence. the deaths of the Embassy staff in Libya are just as much the fault of the people who made this film as they are the fault of the actual individuals who attacked them.

What's worse, is that they've put many more lives at risk - the actors and most of the crew involved had no idea that the film they were making was about Islam - the script was different and the dialogue was all re-dubbed after the fact. Now those people are in fear for their lives:
http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2012/09/a-letter-from-scared-actress.html

I'm pretty sure that this film was made specifically in order to incite violence in the middle east. That's not freedom of speech - that's conspiracy to commit murder, albeit by proxy.

Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

Relapse wrote:


That wouldn't be the first butt Obama's kissed!

OK, that is funny.

/Obama 2012

 Frazzled wrote:

Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

And that's why I think that US style freedom of speech goes too far. You shouldn't be able to abdicate all responsibility for the things you say and do. I think we have a much better balance in the UK. Here you can say what you like provided (a) it can be backed up with evidence, and therefore isn't libel or slander, and (b) it's not specifically intended to incite racial or religious hatred and/or violence. Other than that, fair game.

When one person's rights and freedoms (in this case the film-makers) impinge on the rights and freedoms of others (in this case the entire muslim world, and anyone put at risk by association with this film or the US) then that's going too far.

pgmason wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Spare me the Spiderman bs.
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

And that's why I think that US style freedom of speech goes too far. You shouldn't be able to abdicate all responsibility for the things you say and do. I think we have a much better balance in the UK. Here you can say what you like provided (a) it can be backed up with evidence, and therefore isn't libel or slander, and (b) it's not specifically intended to incite racial or religious hatred and/or violence. Other than that, fair game.

When one person's rights and freedoms (in this case the film-makers) impinge on the rights and freedoms of others (in this case the entire muslim world, and anyone put at risk by association with this film or the US) then that's going too far.

In other words, you don't have freedom of speech in Britain. You can say what you want until someone else doesn't like it. Got it.

It seems apt to note right about now that pgmason doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.

The Life of Brian was entirely made in GB and I never heard of anyone standing trial because of it...

As for Muslims feeling "offended" by a crappy Youtube movie: though! I don't feel particularly trilled by their habits of stoning women to death, but you don't see me throwing issy fits about it!

Scott wrote:

Relapse wrote:


That wouldn't be the first butt Obama's kissed!

OK, that is funny.

/Obama 2012

it was pretty weak actually, since he wasnt kissing anything, but eating it.

A more fitting attempt at humor might have been "that isnt the first weiner he has put in his mouth" or similar.

 Frazzled wrote:
In other words, you don't have freedom of speech in Britain. You can say what you want until someone else doesn't like it. Got it.

Exalted.

Free speech does come with consequences. If you say mean, hateful things then people will know you are a bigot. If you say stupid things then people will know you are a moron. Words can motivate people to do bad but ultimately it is up to the listener rather than the speaker to decide what they will do. It cannot be stated enough that some video doesn't justify violent acts by Muslims or anybody else.

Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.

One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...

 CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.

One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...

Good thing that that crappy Youtube video doesn't do any of those things then.

PhantomViper wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.

One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...

Good thing that that crappy Youtube video doesn't do any of those things then.

Right.

The Life of Brian isn't remotely the same. It's a parody in which the main character isn't Jesus but gets mistaken for him. It doesn't incite hatred, it pokes fun at hypocricy.

The Innocence of Muslims or whatever it's called purports to depict Islam's holiest figure as a child molester and is made by people be associated with anti-islamic hate groups, specifically for the purpose of causing offence. They knew what they were doing was morally indefensible, and that's why they deceived the actors - who wouldn't have participated if they'd known what was going on. There even seems to be some suggestion that the producer did everything under a false identity.

In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.

 Manchu wrote:


Free speech does come with consequences. If you say mean, hateful things then people will know you are a bigot. If you say stupid things then people will know you are a moron. Words can motivate people to do bad but ultimately it is up to the listener rather than the speaker to decide what they will do. It cannot be stated enough that some video doesn't justify violent acts by Muslims or anybody else.

I agree - the protestors aren't justified in attacking the US embassies and I'm pretty sure have been deliberately manipulated into doing so, but if someone knows that their speech is almost guaranteed to lead to violence based on repeated historical precedent, and chooses to do it despite (or even because of) this, then they must bear some of the responsibility for that violence.

The US embassies are the wrong target for the protests. A lot of countries where protests have taken place simply don't have a history of free media - it's all state controlled. That means that if something is mentioned on TV or radio, then its assumed to be the official government position. If that's all you've ever known, it's kind of hard to get your head around the fact that in America people are allowed to publicise opinions directly opposite to the views of the state through the media. The people protesting at the embassies have basically been manipulated into thinking that America itself accused Mohammed of being a child molester, rather than some random (and possibly fictional) Egyptian bloke who happens to live in America.

 CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Freedom of speech, means freedom of speech.

Speech that intentionally incites violence/harm/danger by it's design and usage isnt always protected nor is it universally accepted as acceptable free speech.

One can research Schenck v. United States and related cases to see this...

Sorry Charlie it is completely protected. Its only violative if it meets the standard two pronged test - incitement to immediate harm, capacity to do so.

pgmason wrote:
The Life of Brian isn't remotely the same. It's a parody in which the main character isn't Jesus but gets mistaken for him. It doesn't incite hatred, it pokes fun at hypocricy.

The Innocence of Muslims or whatever it's called purports to depict Islam's holiest figure as a child molester and is made by people be associated with anti-islamic hate groups, specifically for the purpose of causing offence. They knew what they were doing was morally indefensible, and that's why they deceived the actors - who wouldn't have participated if they'd known what was going on. There even seems to be some suggestion that the producer did everything under a false identity.

Its exactly the same thing.

Remake The Life of Brian and replace "ordinary bloke is mistaken for Jeebus" with "ordinary bloke is mistaken for Muhammad", post it on the internet, watch the riots ensue!

Most of the people in those Muslim countries protesting have never seen the video and don't have the faintest idea of what it is about, they are just poor and uneducated masses being given a new target to focus their discontent.

 Manchu wrote:
In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.

And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.

Pakistani officials say they have opened an investigation into a businessman who has been accused of blasphemy after refusing to join protests over an anti-Islam video and allegedly trying to convince others also not to take part.

Police officer Munir Abbasi says that hundreds of protesters in the city of Hyderabad who rallied against the film that mocks the Prophet Muhammad demanded businessman Haji Nasrullah Khan shut his shops in solidarity.

When Khan refused, one of his tenants said his decision supported the film.

City police chief Fareed Jan said Wednesday the protesters claim Khan insulted the Prophet.

Jan said there's no evidence to suggest this happened and said police were pressured by the mob to open the case.

Blasphemy is punishable by life in prison or death in Pakistan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/19/pakistani-accused-blasphemy-over-prophet-film/#ixzz26w7hvacO

Some are forced into it.

 CT GAMER wrote:
And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.

I think that comes down to what you consider participation. Suffice it to say I would be happy to agree with any Muslim who disavows other Muslims because of their violent behavior.

 CT GAMER wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
In contemporary times, the majority of Christians can laugh at jokes about Jesus. I've never seen or heard of Christian societies in modern times murdering people because someone made a joke about Jesus.

And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.

But how many Imams support violence? That is the question.

 Manchu wrote:

 CT GAMER wrote:
And the majority of Muslims don't participate in violence.

I think that comes down to what you consider participation. Suffice it to say I would be happy to agree with any Muslim who disavows other Muslims because of their violent behavior.

In the same way I'd be happy to agree with any christian who disavowed other christians because of the homophobic/bigoted/backwards beliefs they justify with their own religion.

Many muslims do disavow extremist violence. But then those ones dont make for sexy sound bites and video clips to feed Western jingoistic paranoia...