Who Defends Our Right to Free Speech?

[Dave70968]

Without having any answers we know a person is accountable for their actions. With regards to Free Speech, we're still accountable for what we say. With regards to making a movie, the producer is accountable for the message or content. One cannot simply make a movie then hide behind "free speech". We can still hold them accountable, we can judge them and we can hold them responsible.

You. Don't. Get. It. You talk about holding people responsible, and then completely ignore the fact that the people doing the rioting and killing are sentient actors. As GTG pointed out, cattle and dogs are not responsible for their actions because they're not sentient. Actually, he's only half-right: both can be trained. If you mean to suggest that the Muslim population, or some segment of it, is somewhere below the intellectual level of my walking steak dinner, then so state; as for myself, I believe that they're perfectly capable of choosing their actions. That makes them responsible for what they do, regardless of the provocation.

Like any Right, freedom of speech, gets tested, it gets scrutinized and it evolves.
Im of the opinion that there are no Rights in a democracy, rather only temporary privledges subject to the whim of voters or judges or government.

Because Rights dont exist, they cant be projected thousands of miles away and imposed on other nations and cultures. We cant even have the expectation of reasonableness, as to how a different culture may react. To assume they should is folly. Who are we to say what a reasonable action or reaction is. We're not in their country, we dont share the same national experiences. To think any other was is unreasonable.

Wow. Moral equivalency in its purest form. You really think murder is an acceptable response to words? How about shoving young girls into burning buildings because they're not wearing headscarves? Is that okay too? Can we not judge that action because we don't share the same experience?

 

[uncle money bags]

You. Don't. Get. It. You talk about holding people responsible, and then completely ignore the fact that the people doing the rioting and killing are sentient actors. As GTG pointed out, cattle and dogs are not responsible for their actions because they're not sentient. Actually, he's only half-right: both can be trained. If you mean to suggest that the Muslim population, or some segment of it, is somewhere below the intellectual level of my walking steak dinner, then so state; as for myself, I believe that they're perfectly capable of choosing their actions. That makes them responsible for what they do, regardless of the provocation.


Wow. Moral equivalency in its purest form. You really think murder is an acceptable response to words? How about shoving young girls into burning buildings because they're not wearing headscarves? Is that okay too? Can we not judge that action because we don't share the same experience?

This guy, he gets it.

 

[Lurker66]

You. Don't. Get. It. You talk about holding people responsible, and then completely ignore the fact that the people doing the rioting and killing are sentient actors. As GTG pointed out, cattle and dogs are not responsible for their actions because they're not sentient. Actually, he's only half-right: both can be trained. If you mean to suggest that the Muslim population, or some segment of it, is somewhere below the intellectual level of my walking steak dinner, then so state; as for myself, I believe that they're perfectly capable of choosing their actions. That makes them responsible for what they do, regardless of the provocation.


Wow. Moral equivalency in its purest form. You really think murder is an acceptable response to words? How about shoving young girls into burning buildings because they're not wearing headscarves? Is that okay too? Can we not judge that action because we don't share the same experience?

oh i get it. You and others think that reason is universal. You think that being rational is universal. That your argument, right?

I do not think the muslim community is below our standard of reasoning, I am saying their reasoning is different than ours. They way they ration or see things are different. I never said they were right or wrong in their reasoning.

Do i think murder is acceptable for a response to words? Not in our country but other countries it may be. Perhaps you think our standards of moral equivalancy are universal, theyre not. Different countries have different standards, different cultures have different standards, different races have different standards.

when you, our country, our culture, our race, our sex try to impose or posit our ideals on people who are different there will be problems.

So yes, i get it, but then im prolly way over your head.

 

[caojyn]

The first rule of writing, film making, etc, is know your target audience. So this makes me ask the question "who was the filmaker making it for?" Did he make to preach to Americans about the "evil" of Islam or was he trying to get a reaction from that faith?

I can't help but draw a parallel with The Passion of the Christ (the play not the Bible). It was written during the Middle Ages under the guise of entertainment, and had a very slanted view of the events. It preached about the "Evil" Jews killing Christ and sparked a lot of violence against them.

 

[uncle money bags]

oh i get it. You and others think that reason is universal. You think that being rational is universal. That your argument, right?

I do not think the muslim community is below our standard of reasoning, I am saying their reasoning is different than ours. They way they ration or see things are different. I never said they were right or wrong in their reasoning.

Do i think murder is acceptable for a response to words? Not in our country but other countries it may be. Perhaps you think our standards of moral equivalancy are universal, theyre not. Different countries have different standards, different cultures have different standards, different races have different standards.

when you, our country, our culture, our race, our sex try to impose or posit our ideals on people who are different there will be problems.

So yes, i get it, but then im prolly way over your head.

Your post is a well thought out reasonable response for someone with your views right up until the last sentence. It is unnecessary and counterproductive to belittle or denigrate someone who has a different opinion than you. Having said that, I understand that you believe that each culture, race, sex, country, etc. have their own valid and sometimes contradictory views about morality and standards, however, the view of the poster you insulted with your snide remark is that human beings have certain rights and responsibilities as a group irrespective of their backgrounds, which is a view that many people have who do not subscribe to moral equivalency as an excuse for wrong doing .

 

[Dave70968]

I do not think the muslim community is below our standard of reasoning, I am saying their reasoning is different than ours. They way they ration or see things are different. I never said they were right or wrong in their reasoning.

Do i think murder is acceptable for a response to words? Not in our country but other countries it may be. Perhaps you think our standards of moral equivalancy are universal, theyre not. Different countries have different standards, different cultures have different standards, different races have different standards.

So actions are only to be judged against community standards? Fine; let's play with that for a bit:

• Slavery wasn't wrong; it was accepted by the the country/culture of the time
• Gassing six million Jews wasn't wrong; the country/culture accepted it as being within standards
• Flying a couple of jet airliners into buildings wasn't wrong; the culture doing it accepted it (celebrated, actually)

Besides the obvious absurdity of these positions, there are also some real, practical questions. How big of a community is required for something to become okay? Does it take a continent? A nation? A state, county, city block? What degree of homogeneity is required? Do 100% of the people in the bloc have to support the idea? 50% Just the leadership? What happens when two different cultures, with different standards, have to deal with each other? Whose standard rules?

I'd be interested in your answers to these questions, but frankly, if you can't agree that murder is wrong, I really don't see us finding any common ground.

 

[Lurker66]

Its not my intent to insult anyone, i appologize.

 

[Dave70968]

No offense taken. It's a good, challenging topic, and sometimes things don't come out just right.

 

[Hobbes]

You don't get it. If you mishandle an inanimate object or non-rational organism, then you bear the responsibility. If you insult a rational being and they strike out in violence, you're guilty of being stupid, but that does not make you responsible for their reaction. If you believe the filmmaker is responsible for the resulting violent reaction, then you're ipso-facto admitting that those who committed the violence are not rational beings. Subhuman if you were.

In other words, you can stampede cattle or incite dogs to fight and you're responsible. If you cause frightened movie patrons to trample each other in fear by yelling fire in a crowded theater, thereby creating an imminent danger where there was none, you're responsible. If you anger people half a world away, you are not responsible for their reactions, they are.



It is reasonable to be angry when insulted. It is not reasonable to commit acts of vandalism and violence when insulted. We have a word for people in this country who do that. They're called criminals. By attempting to hold the filmmaker responsible, you're drawing a moral equivalency between free speech and murder. That is not rational in any sense of the word. We can condemn the act of making the movie, but we dare not condemn the man for exercising his right of free speech.



No, he doesn't. The filmmaker did not break any laws within the jurisdiction he's in (he violated the terms of his parole, but the act of making the film is not criminal). The rioters did. They are 100% responsible for their actions. I think you're confusing responsibility with socially unacceptable. Preaching intolerance is unacceptable. It is not criminal. Without mutual respect, there is no respect. They do not respect our rights, therefore they cannot expect us to automatically respect their beliefs.

If I had my way, there would be a caricature of Mohamed on the front page of every secular media outlet and webpage in the world tomorrow morning, along with a statement that they cannot kill all of us. If they want respect, they need to earn it. So far, they have not .

You. Don't. Get. It. You talk about holding people responsible, and then completely ignore the fact that the people doing the rioting and killing are sentient actors. As GTG pointed out, cattle and dogs are not responsible for their actions because they're not sentient. Actually, he's only half-right: both can be trained. If you mean to suggest that the Muslim population, or some segment of it, is somewhere below the intellectual level of my walking steak dinner, then so state; as for myself, I believe that they're perfectly capable of choosing their actions. That makes them responsible for what they do, regardless of the provocation.


Wow. Moral equivalency in its purest form. You really think murder is an acceptable response to words? How about shoving young girls into burning buildings because they're not wearing headscarves? Is that okay too? Can we not judge that action because we don't share the same experience?

By your logic Osama Bin Laden bears no responsibility for most of the acts of terror he inspired.

 

[caojyn]

By your logic Osama Bin Laden bears no responsibility for most of the acts of terror he inspired.

And Charles Manson is a victim of the justice system, lol