Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (181173)	2/5/2006 4:07:03 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your rights under freedom of the press do not include the right not to be offended." Unfortunately you insist on an absolute right to freedom of speech. Such a right does not exist neither in Denmark nor in the US. No one, under any democratic system, has an absolute right to freedom of speech. You cannot make a credible threat of injury or death against another person. That is a felony. You do not have the right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater and start a stampede. All of which has NOTHING to do with this case. Andres Serrano made a piece that consisted of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Clearly insulting to Christianity, yet protected "speech" none the less. Everyone is offended by something. If giving offense to anyone becomes the rule in free speech cases, we can shut down our newspapers, radio and TV stations, and the internet. You think not? Dig up some of AS's homosexual-lesbian pieces. Were they targets not public figured, there would be a clear case of slander. Even with them being public figures, AS is likely still vulnerable. "You already said that newspaper is not mainstream media so how does that apply?" Here is what I wrote: "Look to recent US history for examples of such actions, Time and Newsweek, have recently(in the past 10-15 years) apologized for similar publications. Back in the 60's cartoons depicting Blacks in a negative light were common, they don't exist in the main stream media today. Ah, but can the fringe press publish those cartoons? If they can, why not the MSM? There is no difference in application of the 1st amendment based on size. By the way leading US and English political figures have deplored the publication of these cartoons." They also have the right to voice their OPINIONS. Portraying Mohammed with a bomb in his turban with a burning fuse has little to do with the market place of ideas. Doesn't it? Who appointed you World Censor? Not I. It is clearly a statement (wrong as it may be) that Muslims are terrorists. Does the editor not have aright to express such an opinion? When did he lose it? SEIG HEIL!!!!! More important is to understand why the editor (Rose) allowed the cartoons to be printed. Because he agrees? Do you claim a right to regulate his thoughts too? His reason was to help integrate muslims into the Danish society by showing muslims that everything can be satirized. In the Western understanding of "free speech"? He's right. One doesn't help integrate anyone by satirizing their prophet. If they can't live with the rules by which a democracy operates, perhaps they should go back to their dictatorships. They have quite a number to choose from. We owe them NOTHING because they came into our countries for economic reasons because the economies in their own countries are so anemic.

To: Noel de Leon who wrote (181173)	2/6/2006 2:13:54 PM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"you insist on an absolute right to freedom of speech. Such a right does not exist neither in Denmark nor in the US.' Nobody is demanding an absolute right to freedom of speech. We are supporting the rights of people to produce works of humor. Would you want to live in a world without humor? No Monte Python, Benny Hill or Saturday Night live? There must be at least one parody program you have watched and enjoyed. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is wrong. We tolerate those who depict Christ in unflattering light, why should muslims be immune? When one starts enforcing moral outrage selectively, one loses moral authority. Humor not based on reality is not very funny. "leading US and English political figures have deplored the publication of these cartoons." Good, if these same people have moral authority, then I applaud them. For example, Jesse Jackson has no moral authority. "His reason was to help integrate muslims into the Danish society by showing muslims that everything can be satirized. One doesn't help integrate anyone by satirizing their prophet." Poor judgement is now a worthy of economic sanction? Have the nations who proclaim moral standing deplored the murder of Israelis? Those without moral authority crowing only wake up those in their own barnyard.