The debate over these cartoons of Muhammad is ridiculous.

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
If you live in the USA then insulting your mother is legal. Death threat = jailtime. If you don't agree with the law maybe you should start your own country and set the laws yourself. But the Taliban may sue you for copying their idea....

rchieu = pwned

Go read your local tort law and see if defamation and slandering is legal then come back to tell me who just got pwned.

If I say your mother is a bitch. Think you can get me arrested for saying thst? Not in a thousand years.

Why don't you try that in your elementry class with everyone and see if you get sued for it. (you probably don't know tort is civil violation and the damage is repaid in monetary compensation)

You really aren't from here. It happens every day. Do you have the least clue when you CAN sue? What is the one thing that must happen to make a case in a court of law in the US?

Na, you have no clue.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Why is something offensive to Muslim is considered protected by freedom of speech and something offensive to racial group is not most of the time in US. Are we having double standard here?

You've been corrected multiple times, yet you continue to claim this. Hate speech is protected in the US. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

You have yet to show me any major newspaper making racially offensive remark and claiming freedom of speech.

I am still waiting.........

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
If you live in the USA then insulting your mother is legal. Death threat = jailtime. If you don't agree with the law maybe you should start your own country and set the laws yourself. But the Taliban may sue you for copying their idea....

rchieu = pwned

Go read your local tort law and see if defamation and slandering is legal then come back to tell me who just got pwned.

If I say your mother is a bitch. Think you can get me arrested for saying thst? Not in a thousand years.

Why don't you try that in your elementry class with everyone and see if you get sued for it. (you probably don't know tort is civil violation and the damage is repaid in monetary compensation)

You really aren't from here. It happens every day. Do you have the least clue when you CAN sue? What is the one thing that must happen to make a case in a court of law in the US?

Na, you have no clue.

Oh you wanna bet? If I get a good lawyer, let's see what kinda of stuff I can sue for, hmm like emotional distress caused by defamation maybe? I am sure that will be easier to file and to proof then spilling hot coffee on myself. If you don't know how easy and what kind of stuff I can file civil lawsuit for over here in the US, maybe YOU are not from here.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Cerb

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: OrByte
Actually the reaction isn't all that surprising. As for the newspaper, I can't blame them for doing something that they have every right in the world to do. Hell I can't even say I don't like the comics because I do, I think it makes its point in trying to be funny. I like the virgins comic so much it is in my sig now!

So what if the Danish media paper is biased, they can be. There is nothing wrong with that. They might need a lesson on sensitivity though, but thats all.

Oh yeah, like a premier newspaper here have the right to draw a monkey jumping up and down on a car on fire after LA riot? Guess that's alrite too?

My god, how can I make it simple so people understand freedom of speech is not limitless. There is a limit to it, and the most important thing is to not distrub the peace. What the Danish Newspaper did was wrong, plain and simple. The reaction following the cartoon is simply expected, and that IS THE RESULT OF THE CARTOON. Not the other way around. If you want to find someone to blame for this mess, blame the one that started the fire.

...that would be the extremists making threats.

It's very simple: your right to insult me, in any way that is not a lie, is more important than my feelings.

So maybe you can answer this, is it a lie that the entire Muslim population (represented by the prophet mohammed) is bomb carrying suicide bomber, like the cartoon depicted?

I cannot answer your question succinctly. There are two reasons why.

Most directly: I can not be certain that that is what it depicts. I saw it and figured it was a general depiction of radical Muslims, which would clash ever more violently with other cultures as time went by.

Secondly: any opinion can only be a lie of the creator of it knows what he is saying is wrong. If he thinks it is right, it is not a lie.

Third: it is art, and is open to different interpretations, unless the creator of it specifically said what its meaning was, and knew that that meaning is not true.

So, if your interpretation is correct, and the author has said that is what it is depicting, and the artist is using it to defame Islam, and knows it is not true, in whole or part, then there should be an apology, a front-page article about correcting the issure, and the artist out of work. Still, no threat of harm should come to him.

edit: due to your post above, I feel compelled to add this: I am not speaking of what may technically be legal, or what lawyers can weasel out, but what I believe to be right and wrong. Getting lawyers involved in an issue of philosophy is a cop-out.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Why is something offensive to Muslim is considered protected by freedom of speech and something offensive to racial group is not most of the time in US. Are we having double standard here?

You've been corrected multiple times, yet you continue to claim this. Hate speech is protected in the US. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

You have yet to show me any major newspaper making racially offensive remark and claiming freedom of speech.

I am still waiting.........

You are arguing a different thing. You claimed that statements which are offensive to racial groups are not protected. They are protected.

Our rights are not identified by the actions of large newspapers. Large newspapers in the US would generally not print such offensive remarks because they are "enlightended." Racism is not popular among the mainstream audience in the US. Obviously it's different elsewhere in the world.

 

[1EZduzit]

LOL, these "defenders of the faith" are just a bunch of idiots who talk big on a message board. They're IQ is probably lower then there sperm count anyway so who cares what they think???

Just a bunch of sore losers if you ask me.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: slash196
Not a muslim, but I guarantee you this would have been a non-issue if they had used a nameless Muslim rather than the Prophet Muhammad.

T.Y 🙂

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
They insulted the prophet, a non-true muslim can never comprehend how offending that is.

I'm not a Muslim but I think I understand how bad this is for Muslims

Originally posted by: rchiu

Are we having double standard here?

When I see people defending the right for free speech across the board, and then deny someone their right to say things like the Holocast did not happen, I see a double standard.

* Holocaust denial is outlawed in most European countries as a form of hate speech (see also historical revisionism).

* In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

* In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.

* Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.

I wonder how the laws of these Countries would come into play with the cartoons

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: DidlySquat
If you live in the USA then insulting your mother is legal. Death threat = jailtime. If you don't agree with the law maybe you should start your own country and set the laws yourself. But the Taliban may sue you for copying their idea....

rchieu = pwned

Go read your local tort law and see if defamation and slandering is legal then come back to tell me who just got pwned.

If I say your mother is a bitch. Think you can get me arrested for saying thst? Not in a thousand years.

Why don't you try that in your elementry class with everyone and see if you get sued for it. (you probably don't know tort is civil violation and the damage is repaid in monetary compensation)

You really aren't from here. It happens every day. Do you have the least clue when you CAN sue? What is the one thing that must happen to make a case in a court of law in the US?

Na, you have no clue.

Oh you wanna bet? If I get a good lawyer, let's see what kinda of stuff I can sue for, hmm like emotional distress caused by defamation maybe? I am sure that will be easier to file and to proof then spilling hot coffee on myself. If you don't know how easy and what kind of stuff I can file civil lawsuit for over here in the US, maybe YOU are not from here.

You have to prove harm. You can try to find a lawyer to take the case, then mine will eat him and you and the judge will help, then you are going to be paying me.

With the millions of insults that happen every day, why don't you show us how many people have done what you suggest and won.


yeah another one on CNN now. :roll:

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL, these "defenders of the faith" are just a bunch of idiots who talk big on a message board. They're IQ is probably lower then there sperm count anyway so who cares what they think???

Just a bunch of sore losers if you ask me.

Who are you talking about?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Why is something offensive to Muslim is considered protected by freedom of speech and something offensive to racial group is not most of the time in US. Are we having double standard here?

You've been corrected multiple times, yet you continue to claim this. Hate speech is protected in the US. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

You have yet to show me any major newspaper making racially offensive remark and claiming freedom of speech.

I am still waiting.........

You are arguing a different thing. You claimed that statements which are offensive to racial groups are not protected. They are protected.

Our rights are not identified by the actions of large newspapers. Large newspapers in the US would generally not print such offensive remarks because they are "enlightended." Racism is not popular among the mainstream audience in the US. Obviously it's different elsewhere in the world.

hehe, someone seems to be grasping at straws. Yeah sure, major media don't do racial remark because it not popular.....or is it because they WILL get sued (maybe not for crimial offense but civil damage). It's just simple logic and you just don't want to admit it.

 

[slash196]

I don't think that this is a free speech issue. Sure, the Danish press can publish all the blasphemous and offensive images it wants. That doesn't mean it isn't going to piss huge swaths of the population off, and justifiably at that.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Oh you wanna bet? If I get a good lawyer, let's see what kinda of stuff I can sue for, hmm like emotional distress caused by defamation maybe? I am sure that will be easier to file and to proof then spilling hot coffee on myself. If you don't know how easy and what kind of stuff I can file civil lawsuit for over here in the US, maybe YOU are not from here.

[/quote]

You have to prove harm. You can try to find a lawyer to take the case, then mine will eat him and you and the judge will help, then you are going to be paying me.

With the millions of insults that happen every day, why don't you show us how many people have done what you suggest and won.


yeah another one on CNN now. :roll:[/quote]

What like emotional distress caused by the slander is not harm? I know perfectly well what is needed to file a case, and you'd be surprised how many people won on stuff like that. The point is, you cannot just go around and insult people, especially when the insult isn't true and cause damange physically, emotionally, or even in a person's prestige. Care to prove me wrong and support didlysquat's position that insulting people is alrite and you can hide behind first amendment?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: rchiu

Why is something offensive to Muslim is considered protected by freedom of speech and something offensive to racial group is not most of the time in US. Are we having double standard here?

You've been corrected multiple times, yet you continue to claim this. Hate speech is protected in the US. You seem to have a hard time understanding this.

You have yet to show me any major newspaper making racially offensive remark and claiming freedom of speech.

I am still waiting.........

You are arguing a different thing. You claimed that statements which are offensive to racial groups are not protected. They are protected.

Our rights are not identified by the actions of large newspapers. Large newspapers in the US would generally not print such offensive remarks because they are "enlightended." Racism is not popular among the mainstream audience in the US. Obviously it's different elsewhere in the world.

hehe, someone seems to be grasping at straws. Yeah sure, major media don't do racial remark because it not popular.....or is it because they WILL get sued (maybe not for crimial offense but civil damage). It's just simple logic and you just don't want to admit it.

Yeah, I think it's you grasping at straws.

You seem to be easily confused. First you claim that hate speech is illegal. I claim it is protected. You then claim that you have not seen a newspaper make racially offensive remarks. I claim that this is again completely irrelevent since newspapers do not define our rights. Now you're claiming that they will get sued therefore it must be illegal.

I don't think you should be talking about simple logic! Or did I imagine your last couple of posts?! Because newspaper don't print racially insensitive remarks, it must be illegal. Hmmmm... Logic anyone?

I seriously can't believe I'm discussing this with someone who lives in the US. This is one of the fundamental aspsects of our society. Have you never read about KKK rallies, white supremacist literature, etc? I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that immune from the news media. I suggest you do a google search and look through the millions of sources on this. Here's a random link for you: link on extremist hate speech

 

[Rommels]

It's your God. They are your Rules. You goto HELL!!

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
It may be forbidden to depict the Prophet for Muslims, but it isn't so for non-Muslims. Too bad. There are many insulting things in Islam to others... for example, anti-homosexuality aspects of Islam is probably insulting to homosexuals. Maybe they should change that part of their religion?

🙂 that smiley is a caricature of the prophet!!!

:evil: <--this would be a better one imo 🙂

Do you seriously wonder why most of the Muslim world hates us? It's that attitude right there.

You're making that up

 

[dahunan]

I still fail to understand why religious people are choosing to use violence?

WWJD
WWMD

What Would Jesus Do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If someone made a deragatory cartoon of them..
What Would Mohammed Do

 

[LumbergTech]

i see both sides of the issue..i mean to me..the idea that you cant try to depict the big M is beyond retarded..its all a bunch of fictional crap just like jesus..but on the other hand, as the OP said, if someone did an equivalent insult of jesus on national television it would not go well

 

[Rommels]

It's wouldn't go well but it wouldn't get voilent or threats of violance...remember when the chick ripped the Pope up on SNL...

 

[Conky]

This cartoon business is as bizarre as the rest of their beliefs.

It's interesting that these cartoons originally published in September of last year are only now getting these hateful muslims wackos worked up months later. :roll:

 

[dahunan]

Anyone want to go in on producing some shirts with the caricatures on them and see how much profit we can make?

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
This cartoon business is as bizarre as the rest of their beliefs.

It's interesting that these cartoons originally published in September of last year are only now getting these hateful muslims wackos worked up months later. :roll:

News travels slow in countries that haven't progressed in 2000 years.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
This cartoon business is as bizarre as the rest of their beliefs.

It's interesting that these cartoons originally published in September of last year are only now getting these hateful muslims wackos worked up months later. :roll:

News travels slow in countries that haven't progressed in 2000 years.

:laugh:

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
This cartoon business is as bizarre as the rest of their beliefs.

It's interesting that these cartoons originally published in September of last year are only now getting these hateful muslims wackos worked up months later. :roll:

News travels slow in countries that haven't progressed in 2000 years.

:laugh:

On a more serious note, supposedly one of the reasons such a fuss is now being made is because of the images a danish muslim organization 'toured' the middle east with looking to stir up protests. The images this mulism organization were showing were not in fact the ones published in the papers though, they were much more offensive images which can be seen from links at wikipedia under "additional images".

One of these images is a very poorly drawn cartoon of muhammed as a pedofile, the other showing a muslim as a pig, and the worst showing a muslim getting humped by a dog as he prays. Read the wiki article for more info.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

i guess nobody here remembers

"We're More Popular Than Jesus"

 

[DaFinn]

Originally posted by: Rommels
It's your God. They are your Rules. You goto HELL!!

Except in this case its "Their God. Their rules. AND EVERYONE IS GOING TO HELL!"