Double standards on freedom of speech

[user]

I don't see the double standards, nothing stopped that man from pursuing whatever he was doing to offend the jews. The law did not stop him, some people were offended and decided to no longer welcome him, which is their right as well. But no one was murdered. Double standards is when a person is murdered for mocking the jews and people let it slide.

[Dystopia]

Some might see that as an example of state approved bigotry...you know...those people whose bigotry isn't approved by the state.

Life a friend of mine said - "It is a violation of my human rights to not allow me to express my fascism" - There is some truth, I'll admit.

[Cato]

I had another thought about this double standard discussion. There are several outlets operated by Muslims that pump out anti-Semitic cartoons. I'm going to wager there is nobody on payroll in these organizations that produce cartoons insulting the prophet.

[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?

[Jackalope]

Double standards? No, censorship is the suppression of free speech that can be considered objectionable

I realize you're in the EU, but do you think that the USA 1st Amendment exists to protect those who would extoll the virtues of baseball, Mom, and apple pie?

forbidding free hate speech is not censorship.

Yes it is.

[Mystic]

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?

I didn't write the post, I pasted it from another person, but I think there is a double standard when people can't even associate wealth with Jews without being criticized but the public has no problems with insulting Islam and it's founder.

People are sensitive to anything that might offend the Jews but don't care about how offensive they are to Muslims.

It's ok to show hate towards Muslims but not ok to show hate towards Jews. When Mohammad is mocked, the intention is to attack Muslims and disrespect them.


This double standard has to go.

[Mudhammam]

I didn't write the post, I pasted it from another person, but I think there is a double standard when people can't even associate wealth with Jews without being criticized but the public has no problems with insulting Islam and it's founder.

People are sensitive to anything that might offend the Jews but don't care about how offensive they are to Muslims.

It's ok to show hate towards Muslims but not ok to show hate towards Jews. When Mohammad is mocked, the intention is to attack Muslims and disrespect them.


This double standard has to go.

The parallel with Jews and wealth would be Muslims and bombs, in which, I agree, Muslims should not be stereotyped as barbaric, though certainly you'd have to agree that the problem of violent extremism, inhumane treatment of women, gays, and apostates is more pronounced in Islam and cultures that are traditionally Muslim than any other religion in modern times? And is it wrong to point that out?

Mocking the Prophet and the religion of Islam, is not even remotely related as far as I can tell. How many Jewish terrorists have been inspired by making fun of the Prophet Moses? My guess is few to none.