RE: Double standards on freedom of speech
January 9, 2015 at 6:09 pm
(This post was last modified: January 9, 2015 at 6:15 pm by Mudhammam.)
I do think there are double standards in the way that Jews and blacks, for example, cannot be stereotyped without national outcries of bigotry and racism while Muslims and whites can. The reasons for this are undoubtedly historical, though I don't think that's a good enough reason for allowing certain groups to be targeted and mocked while others cannot without the offender getting flogged in the media. There's also a double standard in the way that the media is able to mock all religions and figures, most notably Jesus in the U.S., but not Mohammad. The simple solution to all this is to allow freedom of speech, with the obvious exception of 'hate speech' or speech designed to incite violence and to cause actual individuals to be harmed. Drawing the Prophet Mohammad is not inciting violence. Drawing public figures with bullet holes over their heads, with the hope that someone will take it upon themselves to murder named individuals, is.
It's also one thing to caricature Christians and Muslims, or the cultures defined by such identities, for being crazy, because their beliefs and practices are often just that, on the one hand, and people merely because of the color of their skin or the culture they were raised in, on the other. That's a major difference. It's a fine line when one is making satire but we should let the public decide whether or not such speech is in good taste or bigoted or racist in nature; but in letting the public decide, I mean the public has the right to minimize the offender for pointing out and criticizing what his speech is, whether it's lunacy as in the case of Holocaust denial or the belief that Mohammad is a sacred figure, or just plain bigotry. We have the right to call that speech out for what it is, we don't have the right to ban it.
Let me ask you, Mystic, are you arguing that other groups, whom get special attention (and protection), should not? Or are you arguing that speech against Muslims in particular, should be protected? And certainly you're not arguing that these are the same thing as mocking the Prophet, the religion of Islam, or the fanatical Muslims (or Christians) who are terrorists or otherwise intolerant assholes, right?
It's also one thing to caricature Christians and Muslims, or the cultures defined by such identities, for being crazy, because their beliefs and practices are often just that, on the one hand, and people merely because of the color of their skin or the culture they were raised in, on the other. That's a major difference. It's a fine line when one is making satire but we should let the public decide whether or not such speech is in good taste or bigoted or racist in nature; but in letting the public decide, I mean the public has the right to minimize the offender for pointing out and criticizing what his speech is, whether it's lunacy as in the case of Holocaust denial or the belief that Mohammad is a sacred figure, or just plain bigotry. We have the right to call that speech out for what it is, we don't have the right to ban it.
Let me ask you, Mystic, are you arguing that other groups, whom get special attention (and protection), should not? Or are you arguing that speech against Muslims in particular, should be protected? And certainly you're not arguing that these are the same thing as mocking the Prophet, the religion of Islam, or the fanatical Muslims (or Christians) who are terrorists or otherwise intolerant assholes, right?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza