Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There certainly should be legal action against this kind of behavior. Free speech does not mean shit on other peoples belief systems, no matter how wrong you think they are.

Yes it does. Free speech *must* cover freedom to offend. Otherwise, if anyone can call "foul" when he hears something he doesn't like and have the heretic punished, then it's not much of a freedom at all. This man did not make a call for violence, or anything else blatantly illegal. Instead, he made a retarded video, a bunch of people far away watched it, and, of their own volition, decided to get murderous about it.

Seriously. Offensive speech is the only speech that freedom of speech protects. No one objects to non-offensive speech.

[SalmonGod]

There certainly should be legal action against this kind of behavior. Free speech does not mean shit on other peoples belief systems, no matter how wrong you think they are.

Yes it does. Free speech *must* cover freedom to offend. Otherwise, if anyone can call "foul" when he hears something he doesn't like and have the heretic punished, then it's not much of a freedom at all. This man did not make a call for violence, or anything else blatantly illegal. Instead, he made a retarded video, a bunch of people far away watched it, and, of their own volition, decided to get murderous about it.

Seriously. Offensive speech is the only speech that freedom of speech protects. No one objects to non-offensive speech.

Tell that to whistleblowers and various other political prisoners.  The people they expose aren't necessarily offended.  They simply don't want the truth out.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Speech doesn't have to have a point or be constructive. Whistleblowers are totally irrelevant to this and your assertion that they should be protected in lieu of offensive things is hypocritical. All speech has to be protected for there to be freedom of speech.

[SalmonGod]

Speech doesn't have to have a point or be constructive. Whistleblowers are totally irrelevant to this and your assertion that they should be protected in lieu of offensive things is hypocritical. All speech has to be protected for there to be freedom of speech.

Do you disapprove when a forum mod bans a troll?  What's the difference?  It's a matter of good or bad faith.  If you don't discourage bad faith behavior, then everything gets torn apart in the name of freedom.  This is the anarchist saying this.  Like everything else, free speech is not a pure black & white issue.

[Frumple]

Speech doesn't have to have a point or be constructive. Whistleblowers are totally irrelevant to this and your assertion that they should be protected in lieu of offensive things is hypocritical. All speech has to be protected for there to be freedom of speech.

Um. Libel? Slander? Perjury? The whole "Fire!" thing? Not all speech, no. There are, actually, limits to the freedom of speech.

Not saying the arsehat that's being discussed was outside of those limits, but all speech certainly isn't protected by the concept of freedom of speech, and the freedom of speech isn't impugned when certain types of speech are suppressed or punished. I guess those speaking against the dude are saying that the fellow was getting close to the limits, if not actually stepping over them.

[kaijyuu]

Some offensive speech sure as hell shouldn't be covered under that freedom. Anything that constitutes harassment, for example. Putting a burning cross on someone's lawn is a bigger problem than just the property damage, freedom of speech or no.

That said, I'm fine with "shitting on people's believe systems" provided people aren't getting harassed over it.

[RedKing]

Yeah, there are exceptions to every rule (not including this one, which is an exception. Which creates a logic loop, but nevermind that.)

There are certain behaviors that are simply beyond the pale. It's not just about the message but the medium. One guy standing on a streetcorner yelling offensive shit about Islam, meh. One guy creating a film (even if it's a really badly made one), putting it on YouTube and then working on making it a viral sensation with the intent of causing mass chaos....problem.

[SalmonGod]

My perspective is that if you're going to do/say something that you know is offensive, you better have a good reason for it.  If not, the community is completely justified in minimalizing your disruptiveness.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Speech doesn't have to have a point or be constructive. Whistleblowers are totally irrelevant to this and your assertion that they should be protected in lieu of offensive things is hypocritical. All speech has to be protected for there to be freedom of speech.

Do you disapprove when a forum mod bans a troll?  What's the difference?  It's a matter of good or bad faith.  If you don't discourage bad faith behavior, then everything gets torn apart in the name of freedom.  This is the anarchist saying this.  Like everything else, free speech is not a pure black & white issue.

The difference being that punishing someone for their speech in the public forum (i.e., the world) through prison or jail time is a major deprivation of freedom, where as banning trolls from a semi-private forum (i.e., Bay 12) is a minor deprivation of freedom in a non-public place.

Screw discouraging bad faith behavior. If the Islamists who organized these riots knew how to live and let live this wouldn't even be a problem. They are far more at fault than the guy who made this film.

[nenjin]

Yeah, there are exceptions to every rule (not including this one, which is an exception. Which creates a logic loop, but nevermind that.)

There are certain behaviors that are simply beyond the pale. It's not just about the message but the medium. One guy standing on a streetcorner yelling offensive shit about Islam, meh. One guy creating a film (even if it's a really badly made one), putting it on YouTube and then working on making it a viral sensation with the intent of causing mass chaos....problem.

Not to my eyes. Televangelists here do that shit on a weekly basis and get filthy rich doing it. No religion in the world has the right to go on a rampage because someone said something they don't like, regardless of how offensive everyone thinks it is. Just like no gamer has the right to be abusive just because someone said something about a game they hold sacred.

Part of the issue to me here is that Islam still, in many believer's minds, resides in the mid 1900s before the advent of the internet and the ability to be annoyed by something someone says at a moment's notice.

And since they're banning Youtube left and right, clearly, that's how some like it.

[kaijyuu]

Man we just dogpile on weak assertions around here, don't we?


To me the limits on freedom of speech have to do with malice. If you say something not to fix a problem, or to correct someone, or anything like that, but rather just to offend or harm, then we've got a problem.

[Leafsnail]

Do you disapprove when a forum mod bans a troll?  What's the difference?  It's a matter of good or bad faith.  If you don't discourage bad faith behavior, then everything gets torn apart in the name of freedom.  This is the anarchist saying this.  Like everything else, free speech is not a pure black & white issue.

Forums are private areas of the internet.  Moderators can ban people to keep the forums how they like them to be, and users will move towards a forum with an atmosphere they like.  If someone is banned from a forum that doesn't mean they can't still say what they were saying - it just means they have to take it somewhere else.  Arresting people for "trolling" in real life would be completely different.

I do think there are some limits on free speech, but to be honest I don't think this film breached any of them (there may be contractual issues with the actors but that's another matter).  The ones I can think of are:
- Serious slander: spreading lies about someone to damage their reputation
- Harrassment: going after a specific person or people and undue grief (this one would take a while to properly define, but I think you can see what I'm getting at)
- Inciting violence: telling people to commit acts of violence, especially people who you have a degree of control over
- Hoaxes that inconvenience others or cost a lot: stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theatre

I don't think criticising a historical figure or a belief system really falls under any of those.  In any case the embassy attacks were almost certainly planned ahead of time and more as revenge for the assassinations of high up members of al-Qaeda than for some film that almost noone watched.

[RedKing]

Do you disapprove when a forum mod bans a troll?  What's the difference?  It's a matter of good or bad faith.  If you don't discourage bad faith behavior, then everything gets torn apart in the name of freedom.  This is the anarchist saying this.  Like everything else, free speech is not a pure black & white issue.

- Hoaxes that inconvenience others or cost a lot: stuff like yelling fire in a crowded theatre

Given how full of shit the movie appears to be, and the consequences from it, I think this could qualify. Part of the reasoning behind the "fire" thing is that a reasonable person could predict what would happen, based on human nature.

I think a reasonable person could have predicted that certain portions of the Muslim world would lose their collective shit over something like this. Arguing that the filmmaker isn't at fault because devout Muslims should just "shrug it off" is like saying that people stampeding out of the theater should have exited calmly or even noticed that there was no smoke, so it's their fault.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fire is a physical threat. Insulting Islam is criticism and can't kill you unless psycho Islamists decide they want to go on a rampage because of it. Fire cannot think. Islamists can.

[Nadaka]

Man we just dogpile on weak assertions around here, don't we?


To me the limits on freedom of speech have to do with malice. If you say something not to fix a problem, or to correct someone, or anything like that, but rather just to offend or harm, then we've got a problem.

Offensive speech is protected speech in America. The limit on libel/slander/defamation is that it must be an intentionally false claim made to the public and it causes measurable financial damage to the victim. It is also a civil issue, not a criminal one.

Making a movie about pedo rapist Mohamed is not intentionally false, nor financially damaging.

In less free countries, you can be charged with libel or slander even in the claim is truthful and the person is sufficiently powerful.