Are Muslims overly sensitive about the Prophet Mohammad?

[Nebor]

Didn't you swear to defend the Constitution?
The Constitution allows religious freedom
You may have your opinion on how you would like to change that, but the stuff you post here seems like a violation of that oath to me.

You seem to be confusing the rights of Americans and the rights of everyone else. People are free to worship whatever they want as Americans, even if I think it's silly or dangerous. Much more importantly, Americans are allowed to say whatever they want, even if it offends people.

 

[OCGuy]

Is there no way, in the US, that the filmakers of this move could be charged with your exceptions to free speech?

Defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

I've read that the actors/actresses may be filling civil charges and may stop the movie on their own.

At least you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about.


No, they can't be charged. A civil lawsuit by an actor would not be about a "crime", and there is no chance for jail.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

And making such movies should be considered as a crime as well.

You can believe that as much as you want but it's not a crime.

Egypt can piss off with their demands of arrests, it's not going to happen and they are just showing the world that they are stuck in medieval times without a chance of progressing any time soon.

What the protesters did IS a crime though, i noticed that you didn't have sheit to say about that though.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Is there no way, in the US, that the filmakers of this move could be charged with your exceptions to free speech?

Defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

I've read that the actors/actresses may be filling civil charges and may stop the movie on their own.

How do you figure? What about this film could be considered defamation, incitement to riot or fighting words?

Be specific.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You seem to be confusing the rights of Americans and the rights of everyone else. People are free to worship whatever they want as Americans, even if I think it's silly or dangerous. Much more importantly, Americans are allowed to say whatever they want, even if it offends people.

No, I am specifically speaking to you, an active US military member. Like I said, about swearing an oath to defend the Constitution
I'm not talking about civilians
There is no problem with you just disagreeing with the Constitution, speaking your mind on a public forum about it?
Openly calling one of the major religion's Prophet,... a kiddy-diddler for example

At least you have proven you have no idea what you are talking about.


No, they can't be charged. A civil lawsuit by an actor would not be about a "crime", and there is no chance for jail.

Oh, I never claimed to be a lawyer.
That's why I asked, to see if someone I figured may know more then me, could tell me

 

[Orignal Earl]

How do you figure? What about this film could be considered defamation, incitement to riot or fighting words?

Be specific.

I'm not sure.
Maybe something along the lines like this?


UK Student Charged For 'Grossly Offensive' Facebook Post

Just in case anyone needed another reminder that Britain's "Free Speech" laws are more about what's not included than what is, a UK citizen has just been found guilty of "sending a grossly offensive communication," a crime under the Malicious Communications Act of 1988.

Azher Ahmed posted a message on his Facebook page in response to the news that six British soldiers had died in an Afghanistan IED attack. His message was as follows:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...charged-grossly-offensive-facebook-post.shtml

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I'm not sure.
Maybe something along the lines like this?


UK Student Charged For 'Grossly Offensive' Facebook Post



http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...charged-grossly-offensive-facebook-post.shtml

But how would they use UK laws in the US?

And you were not specific about what parts (preferably with time stamps) you think would apply.

 

[bfdd]

Earl UK example only works if we were talking about Uk

 

[zephyrprime]

yes

 

[Orignal Earl]

But how would they use UK laws in the US?

I had asked about the American exceptions to free speech, I used your UK as an example to you when you asked.

And you were not specific about what parts (preferably with time stamps) you think would apply.

Are you asking me, which parts of the movie, I don't think are correct?
I haven't seen the movie, and would not be able to tell you if I had.
I'm not Muslim and have only begun to try to understand their beliefs.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Earl UK example only works if we were talking about Uk

ya...that would be obvious to most people

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I had asked about the American exceptions to free speech, I used your UK as an example to you when you asked.



Are you asking me, which parts of the movie, I don't think are correct?
I haven't seen the movie, and would not be able to tell you if I had.
I'm not Muslim and have only begun to try to understand their beliefs.

There aren't legal analogies between the UK and the US in this regard. It's impossible to defame a dead person, incitement to riot is defined more narrowly than someone else responding to an insult. If the creators used a movie combined with actions to overthrow the US government it could be used as evidence to support the charge, but just shooting one's mouth off via film alone does not reach the threshold. As has been explained "fighting words" is also narrowly defined.

I do believe I read that someone associated with this has been arrested on a parole violation as a condition was that there be no internet access. They can indirectly punish him because of that, but that's about it.

 

[Screech]

I watched it on youtube and loled at how terrible it was. That anyone would get worked up enough to kill people over it is pathetic though.

 

[Orignal Earl]

I watched it on youtube and loled at how terrible it was. That anyone would get worked up enough to kill people over it is pathetic though.

I keep seeing it repeated here that people are getting killed.
Other then the terrorist attack on the ambassador, are there protesters killing people?

 

[crashtestdummy]

I tried to describe to you that it is not about feeling offended. It is about making stuff that's offending by itself like depicting religious figures in sexual intercourse!!

But it is. What makes sexual intercourse wrong? What makes depicting images of your prophet wrong? They are declared wrong by your religion, fine, but if someone else does them, it doesn't affect you and your worship. No one made you watch that youtube video (if in fact you've seen it). I haven't seen it, and probably won't, simply because I have no interest in it.

Something you must understand about our American values: free speech is the right upon which all other rights are based. Without speech, there is nothing. You have the freedom to declare Muhammad the greatest prophet of all, I have the right to declare that I see no reason to believe in a God at all.

People in this country say thing I consider incredibly, horribly wrong. There are holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, Klansmen, NAMBLA members, people who fuck goats, Todd Akin, Benedict Groeschel, the list goes on. I support letting these people speak because the things I say are considered equally horrible by other people (indeed, being an atheist still carries a death sentence in some parts of the world).

Furthermore, publicly silencing ideas does not eliminate them. By not letting those with ideas you detest speak their thoughts openly, their ideas fester unchallenged, further radicalizing their believers. The more strongly you react to these people publishing stupid Muhammad videos, the more intent they will be on producing them, and the more they will hate the Muslim world for their overreaction.

 

[Screech]

I keep seeing it repeated here that people are getting killed.
Other then the terrorist attack on the ambassador, are there protesters killing people?

Depends on how you define the terms. For example, the attack in libya was obviously a planned military attack planned to line up with the date 9/11, not some random protest. Other things like this http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/world/asia/afghanistan-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 might result more from the film. There are some other cases of deaths that have occurred in protests, see here http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wor...er-as-protests-rage-over-insulting-movie.html

However, the exact circumstances of the deaths are at best unclear.

That so many people would be rioting over this in the first place is something I find genuinely strange, but hey -- that's their right. Egypt's call for the arrest of 8 (US) people in the film is hilarious - like the emancipation proclamation: it only applies to people who are not under the control of the government issuing the edict.

 

[Alaa]

I ignore most of what's said here because it's more about testosterone than thought and so I dismiss it.

I accept that you believe movies like this are something we should ban. Starting from there, what do you believe is the legitimate right and duty of a Muslim if we do not? This is the crux of the matter as I see it.

Get the focus on the correct information not the fake one.

What if that doesn't offend me? What if censorship offends me because I believe in information and the flow of it I hold above all else? What if I find your quran offensive should that be banned? What if I thought anything referring to the sky being blue offensive to my world view? Should all of those things be banned as well?

My problem with you is that you are taking it too far. Censorship is not comparable to depicting religious figures in sexual intercourse. There is no comparison and you know it. What you are saying is correct generally but there are exceptions for every rule.

 

[Alaa]

Worst of all he is openly admitting his faith is weak. So weak that the actions and words of man cause doubt in his God and prophet. So much so that they must be wiped out completely else he and other good !Muslims may lose their faith. As a non-religious person I am always saddened when those who proclaim faith have so little of it.

Let me get this straight, you don't get it. So please stop explaining the inner of someone you never knew.

 

[1prophet]

Is there no way, in the US, that the filmakers of this move could be charged with your exceptions to free speech?

Defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words?

I've read that the actors/actresses may be filling civil charges and may stop the movie on their own.

You want to give the religious right in America the court victory that so eluded them all these years, think about that before wishing to open up that Pandora's box.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fam5wRXcoQE

 

[Alaa]

But it is. What makes sexual intercourse wrong? What makes depicting images of your prophet wrong? They are declared wrong by your religion, fine, but if someone else does them, it doesn't affect you and your worship. No one made you watch that youtube video (if in fact you've seen it). I haven't seen it, and probably won't, simply because I have no interest in it.

Something you must understand about our American values: free speech is the right upon which all other rights are based. Without speech, there is nothing. You have the freedom to declare Muhammad the greatest prophet of all, I have the right to declare that I see no reason to believe in a God at all.

People in this country say thing I consider incredibly, horribly wrong. There are holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, Klansmen, NAMBLA members, people who fuck goats, Todd Akin, Benedict Groeschel, the list goes on. I support letting these people speak because the things I say are considered equally horrible by other people (indeed, being an atheist still carries a death sentence in some parts of the world).

Furthermore, publicly silencing ideas does not eliminate them. By not letting those with ideas you detest speak their thoughts openly, their ideas fester unchallenged, further radicalizing their believers. The more strongly you react to these people publishing stupid Muhammad videos, the more intent they will be on producing them, and the more they will hate the Muslim world for their overreaction.

I have no problem with anything you said. I only ask for some politeness and respect for my religious figures. Both of us denies each others' beliefs but we still respect each other. You may express your views of whatever you want and probably say that our prophet did X which you see as negative or whatever you want. But there is always a limit of respect.

 

[Nebor]

My problem with you is that you are taking it too far. Censorship is not comparable to depicting religious figures in sexual intercourse. There is no comparison and you know it. What you are saying is correct generally but there are exceptions for every rule.

You're not compatible with civilized lifeforms. That's what I'm getting from what you're saying. "Free speech is great! (as long as you don't say anything my god wouldn't like.)"

 

[Screech]

Censorship is not comparable to depicting religious figures in sexual intercourse.

You are correct. In American jurisprudence, censorship is FAR, FAR worse than depicting religious figures in sexual intercourse could ever be. The reason being that while you can always ignore speech/video you do not like (just turn off your computer or don't look at youtube if you don't like the video), it is hard to limit censorship once it is allowed.

Also, for what it's worth, the current video does not show anyone having sex, although its obviously implied, but not shown.

 

[randomrogue]

I think this is what happens when you mix "church" and "state". A Muslim will find that depicting their prophet in a dress is illegal and should be punished while in the USA you can dress up as Jesus in panties and a bra for Halloween without people trying to kill you.

Honestly the real crime here isn't the movie but all organized religion. We should ban them all and solve a lot of our world problems right then and there.

 

[Alaa]

You're not compatible with civilized lifeforms. That's what I'm getting from what you're saying. "Free speech is great! (as long as you don't say anything my god wouldn't like.)"

What's the point of your speech if it is not constructive? If you don't respect my values then we are not getting anywhere with your speech. We could do better without it.

 

[randomrogue]

What's the point of your speech if it is not constructive? If you don't respect my values then we are not getting anywhere with your speech. We could do better without it.

You're just not listening. You only want to hear what you want to hear. If you're going to do that then why don't you just take a page out of our book and walk away from things that you don't agree with. People are entitled to their opinions - even the ones about Islam that you don't agree with.