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.

Idiots purposefully trying to draw fire from other idiots draw their fire. News at eleven.

 whembly wrote:
"because I can" is exactly the thing we need to defend with regards to freedom expression.

Why? The legal right to be offensive just because you can is not in any danger, so what you're talking about defending is the ability to be offensive just because you can and not face criticism for your actions.

Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing.

I'm going to go drink the rest of this whiskey now.

 insaniak wrote:
Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...

You mean events such as "believing something different to what they do and still being alive"?

The more extreme and violent the position, the more justified it is for people to be negative and mocking of said position. Making people too afraid to criticise is one of the main the goals of these kinds of attacks. Extremist views, regardless of the basis of those views (religious, political, etc), should rightly be able to be lampooned as part of the overall discussion surrounding them.

 Bromsy wrote:
Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing.

I 'just draw' quite a bit, and this ain't that. No one is siding with the shooters either, but it doesn't take a child prodigy to work out that this was done intentionally to antagonize then cry wolf when they succeeded in antagonizing. It is a story where no one is right, and everyone is wrong. It is just that some are idiots for purposely trying to piss off others and the other is criminally liable and idiotic for taking the bait.

Honestly my first though was that they shot at themselves to create sympathy, but really I really don't know what happened other than people were shot for stupid reasons. Hopefully the shooters are caught and sent to jail for a good long time.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You mean events such as "believing something different to what they do and still being alive"?

This "conference" was not just about having different beliefs, it was about being deliberately offensive to people that have the "wrong" religion.

The more extreme and violent the position, the more justified it is for people to be negative and mocking of said position. Making people too afraid to criticise is one of the main the goals of these kinds of attacks. Extremist views, regardless of the basis of those views (religious, political, etc), should rightly be able to be lampooned as part of the overall discussion surrounding them.

You do realize that there are a lot of people who are not even close to "extreme and violent" that are offended by the cartoons, right? Or are they just acceptable collateral damage as long as the violent extremists are properly mocked and insulted?

If it's forbidden to depict Mohammed in a picture, how does ANYONE know what the original bloke looked like?

One (among many) things I've just never understood about religious things.

 Peregrine wrote:
This "conference" was not just about having different beliefs, it was about being deliberately offensive to people that have the "wrong" religion.

Of this I am aware. However, the same extremist fringe who targets people "offending" against them for drawing pictures (a truely terrible crime I'm sure), is also quite happy murdering people simply for being alive and not believing the same things they do. When actively offending and simply existing are treated the same way, then there is a problem...

You do realize that there are a lot of people who are not even close to "extreme and violent" that are offended by the cartoons, right? Or are they just acceptable collateral damage as long as the violent extremists are properly mocked and insulted?

Of course I realise that more people are offended than the murderous fringe. However, the material offense given to average joe believer because someone on the other side of the world draws a picture highlighting a link between some followers of your religion and violent acts is negligible.

Political cartoons are regularly pretty offensive towards their chosen target, and arguably to the followers of said politician/ideal. I would not say that they ruin peoples lives as much as some extremist political group then going out and killing people who don't have the same political views.

I can't claim to know many Jews, for example, but the few that I do know don't suffer through life because some Muslims have drawn horrible anti-semetic cartoons, written or spoken about wiping out the Jewish race/religion, etc... Yet the people actually being killed in support of the sentiments behind this offensive language are still just as dead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 chromedog wrote:
If it's forbidden to depict Mohammed in a picture, how does ANYONE know what the original bloke looked like?

One (among many) things I've just never understood about religious things.

Because the restriction is cultural that has been adopted religiously by the major Islamic groups. For quite a few hundred years there were depictions of Mohammed in Islamic art. They vary about as much as pictures of Jesus, but generally show a bloke with a beard. I guess that means any image of a bearded gent is potentially offensive...

 Bromsy wrote:
Man we are jaded that when a people try to murder other people for drawing we just shrug and call them idiots for drawing
.

And there are some people are so jaded they don’t even read the thread before posting their witty comment.

If those jaded people had read the thread, they would find that every single person who posted thought the attempted attack was much, much worse than drawing pictures of Mohammed. They would learn that the only reason the drawing is getting more commentary is because that’s actually being debated, whereas it’s just accepted by everyone that attacking the conference was murderous insanity.

But hey, more fun to be jaded and just dropping in for witty comments.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Of this I am aware. However, the same extremist fringe who targets people "offending" against them for drawing pictures (a truely terrible crime I'm sure), is also quite happy murdering people simply for being alive and not believing the same things they do. When actively offending and simply existing are treated the same way, then there is a problem...

Nobody is justifying the actions of the murderous extremists. Criticizing the cartoonists for being tasteless s does not mean approving of violent retaliation against them.

However, the material offense given to average joe believer because someone on the other side of the world draws a picture highlighting a link between some followers of your religion and violent acts is negligible.

I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be.

Political cartoons are regularly pretty offensive towards their chosen target, and arguably to the followers of said politician/ideal.

What's your point? I don't think anyone here has said that political cartoons are never inappropriate. And "you're only as bad as offensive political cartoons" is hardly a favorable opinion of the anti-religious cartoonists.

I would not say that they ruin peoples lives as much as some extremist political group then going out and killing people who don't have the same political views.

And nobody is arguing otherwise. You're arguing against a straw man here.

 Peregrine wrote:
I'm glad you're here to tell everyone how offended they should be.

And for such a modest fee too...

 chromedog wrote:
If it's forbidden to depict Mohammed in a picture, how does ANYONE know what the original bloke looked like?

One (among many) things I've just never understood about religious things.

It's not always been forbidden though, there is quite a bit of classical art depicting the prophet mainly arounbd the 13th century.

 Hordini wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
They look more like soldiers than police in those pictures. Is is normal for them to use non-blue/black outfits?

It's because they're a SWAT team, I believe. And uniforms and equipment vary widely by department.

As for the OP:
You'd likely be hard pressed to find a more adamant free speech advocate than me, but the whole purpose of this event was to be inflammatory, disrespectful and provocative to Muslims, whether peaceful or radical. I wonder if the event organizers got what they wanted out of it?

Somehow, I bet if we swap a few religious names around here, there wouldn't be quite as much indignation towards the event organizer, and lots more wailing and teeth gnashing at the gunmen. I mean we're getting seriously close to victim blaming in this thread.

 insaniak wrote:
This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs to those of the event's oganisers. And that is, quite frankly, appalling.

This could work just as well for an expo of cartoons against racism. “This 'expo' was a contest with the apparent specific purpose of insulting people for the 'crime' of having different beliefs on race to those of the event's oganisers.”
I think the real difference is that you consider being Muslim a valid opinion that should be respected and not mocked.

 insaniak wrote:
'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.

The right to Free Speech was supposed to keep people free of oppression.

So, people “kicking you in the fork”, or rather, trying to shot you dead, is not oppression? Tell me more about this gak .

 insaniak wrote:
Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.

It also means that the government should try to protect you from people unlawfully attacking you for said speech. Else it does not work.

No indignation. Just a complete lack of surprise.

It's hard to be sympathetic of someone getting attacked by a religious nut when they were standing in front of said nut yelling 'Go on, then! I dare you! '

 insaniak wrote:
That doesn't make it a good idea.

'Free Speech' doesn't absolve you of any responsibility for your behaviour. If you set out to deliberately insult someone, screaming '...but my Free Speeches!' isn't going to stop them from kicking you in the fork.

You are correct that it does not stop them, but it does not legitimize their actions





I would point out that at this time the motive for this attack has still not been made public, if known.

Oh good. Another crackpot kicking up a fuss about something as ridiculous as a cartoon.

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

So the attackers can claim the equivalent of "It's not my fault, she shouldn't have been dressed like that"?

Of course you should be allowed to draw cartoons.
But do you really have to do it for the sole purpose of annoying more than a billon people?
That's just ignorant.

In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV. You are not allowed to show a female nipple. And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

So the attackers can claim the equivalent of "It's not my fault, she shouldn't have been dressed like that"?

No.

A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:

1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so.
2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.

At the same time people are able to realize:

1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass.
2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did.
3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.

It appears that the OT has a problem with the fact that a person can be both a victim and an donkey-cave.

 von Hohenstein wrote:
Of course you should be allowed to draw cartoons.
But do you really have to do it for the sole purpose of annoying more than a billon people?
That's just ignorant.

Nice to see you condemning the people actually shooting other people instead of the ones drawing pictures...

 von Hohenstein wrote:

In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV.

You are allowed in some networks and not in others, much like you aren't allowed to say it on Dakka. Free speech laws don't apply to private companies...

 von Hohenstein wrote:

You are not allowed to show a female nipple.

You are in some and not in others. See above reply.

 von Hohenstein wrote:

And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".

Yes you are.

 von Hohenstein wrote:

AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?

This is just a lie...

Congratulations, I hadn't seen such a... lets call it "interesting"... post in a while...

 insaniak wrote:

 whembly wrote:
F that man...

Free speech means just that. There is no "but".

Well, no, 'Free Speech', at least in the US context, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government.

It doesn't mean that if you act like a dick, people will just grin and bear it.

But attempting to murder folks for having this event is pants on crazy.

Sure. Although you could slap the same label on 'Running an event designed specifically to insult a religion in a way that is known to have resulted in people being murdered not so long ago'...


The issue here is far less about 'freedom of speech' and more about the fact that if you insult people, there's a good chance that you'll piss them off.

That doesn't mean that the reaction in this case was the right one... just that it's not exactly an unexpected one, and I would agree with those who suggest that it was likely exactly what the organisers were fishing for, so that they could then point the finger at those nasty muslims trying to impinge on their freedoms.

If you poke the bear, you can't claim to be the victim when it bites you.

Wrong, the first amendment, means having the right to say what you want without interference by your government. Free speech is a much bigger and more generic concept. I do love the argument that "he was asking for it, I just wonder if there are other circumstances where the same individuals would rightfully get incredibly upset at that thought........................

PhantomViper wrote:

 von Hohenstein wrote:

You are not allowed to show a female nipple.

You are in some and not in others. See above reply.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nipplegate

 d-usa wrote:

No.

A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:

1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so.
2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.

At the same time people are able to realize:

1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass.
2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did.
3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.

That we can both agree on. Reading your initial post of

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

It seemed a little heavy on the victim blaming. But thank you for the clarification.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 von Hohenstein wrote:
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?

I haven't hard of this before. Which States?

 von Hohenstein wrote:
In the land of the free you are not allowed to say "feth" on TV. You are not allowed to show a female nipple. And you are not allowed to say "kill the president". Allow that before you cry for "freedom of speech".
AFAIK it is forbidden in some states to teach Darwins theory - freedom of speech?

Literally eveything in this post is false .

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

No.

A vast majority of people are able to comprehent two separate concepts existing at the same time:

1) The organizer is an idiot and an donkey-cave who decided that "come at me bro" was the right thing to do and, based on whatever your opinion may be, he was right/wrong for doing so.
2) The attackers are idiots and donkey-cave who decided that shooting up a place because they felt offended is a valid response to feeling insulted, if that is indeed why they did it.

At the same time people are able to realize:

1) The organizer is an ass, but he doesn't deserve to be shot up for being an ass.
2) The attackers are donkey-caves who may be offended, but that doesn't justify what they did.
3) Peaceful Muslims who are exposed to an event that is a giant "feth you" to their religion and peaceful bystanders who get hit by the crossfire because of stupid responses are going to be a sad reality.

That we can both agree on. Reading your initial post of

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

It seemed a little heavy on the victim blaming. But thank you for the clarification.

Reading it again I realize that it did. Sorry, that wasn't my intention.

 von Hohenstein wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 von Hohenstein wrote:

You are not allowed to show a female nipple.

You are in some and not in others. See above reply.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nipplegate

Awww.... you're trying to be cute, that is actually really cute!

but that fine was appealed and ultimately voided by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2011 ruling, and a case to reinstate the fine was refused in 2012.

But, please, continue to show your ignorance on these matters, its very entertaining!

 cincydooley wrote:
I have to admit...I don't understand why this conference exists other than to be demeaning and hateful.....

Someone help me out here...

And? It was still just attacked by the Islamists they were makiing fun of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Whew. LEO look like a unit on deployment into the "Box"

Edit

Nah this is Texas. Those were just some librarians walking by. The one on the right is trying to direct everyone to the periodicals section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
The whole events was a giant "feth you" and "come at me bro" by the organizer, who apperantly is well known for that kind of stuff.

Too bad that it looks like some other idiots took the bait, and even worse that the victim was a security guard that was stuck there.

They weren't idiots. They were terrorists. Don't try to hide what has just occurred.

Of all cartoons I've seen aimed at religion I'm surprise Hustler hasn't been attacked yet.

Yes. They were terrorists. And the event organizers are donkey-caves. The two aren't mutually exclusive.