Freedom of speech: What limits do you draw?

[chafic]

Inspired by a discussion on the political forum about Salman Rushdie, I decided to open this thread to possibly get different opinions about freedom of speech. Do you draw a limit to this freedom, and if so, where, when and how do you explain it?

Moughtarib, I'll start by replying to your post here.

Originally Posted by moughtarib

disrespect, the least to say, is not about "Suiting" you or not. It is simply "disrespect" and not Freedom of Speech.

Moughtarib, how do you qualify disrespect? How do you differenciate between that and difference of opinions?

Originally Posted by moughtarib

I was in Netherlands during the "fitna" movie clip release and heard the debates and discussions between the dutch themselves, and i can share with you a few facts:

1. Islamophobia is growing europe
2. Its reasons are mixture of neo-christian conservatism and hard economics (cheaper wages and sometimes more skilled to moroccon workers in Netherlands than the dutch, algerians than the french, turks than the germans, bosnians than the swiss, pakistanis than the English) ---> which creates pressure on work groups
3. Some immigrant groups are in generation 2 or 3 and given the rise of "religiousness" following the collapse of the Soviet Union and our friend "protector of the Sword" Georges Bush new ideological jargon, the immigrants are more in touch with their religious identities as society and media is labelling them
--> Thus they want to have mosques, not brush their teeth in ramadan, and other rituals in the cities and communities they live in

Do you think Europe fears Islam or Islamism?

Originally Posted by moughtarib

Given the above you have:
1. salman rushdi (who as a writer can do whatever he wants), but the state actually "encourages him and his like" by making him a Knight is what's bothering
2. The famous cartoons of Denmark
3. Fitna of Netherlands
4. Obama having some muslim heritage becomes a "tihmeh" as if you're saying he's "GAY" in Saudi Politics masalan
....(wa takorr el masbaha)

1- Why is it bothering? An how do you qualify Rushdie and his likes?
2- What about the cartoons?
3- What about Fitna?
4- You're right at this one.

Originally Posted by moughtarib

while under the "protection" of Freedom of Speech; the world of East & West are growing apart. Communities in the same country grow apart (indians/pakis in UK. Moroccons in Netherlands...)

No, it's not because of freedom of speech, but it's because of the failure to accept that freedom of speech. That's what should be tackled, not the other way by silencing he\she who has a different opinion, as long as that opinion doesn't advocate violence or the suspention of the freedom of others.

Originally Posted by moughtarib

And with Freedom of Speech we are not allowed to discuss:
1. No Nazi/ Neo-Nazi organizations can be formed
2. Reviewing the mathematics of the Holocaust of the Jews would take you to jail
3. Killing a Muslim youth french is Islamophobia "which is understandable", but shooting a Jew is an "international crisis" where French polticians run to kiss ***.

1- I'm not sure of your point; Nazism held an extremist ideology of ethnic cleansing; What is in Nazism that would make you support the formation of neo-nazi parties.
2- Could you please be more specific? Assuming it is true, then I expect one to be arguing in favor of the freedom to review whatever you want, not taking it as an justification to do the same.
3- What is your point here?

Originally Posted by moughtarib

You are either aware of the above and just looking for low blows in SHN's speech & are actually happy with the growing differences in our world

What do you mean by growing differences? And how am I happy by growing differences?

Originally Posted by moughtarib

(which by the way you being part of a minority group doesn't help and will backfire in a way or other)

What do you mean by minority group? How do you know that I'm part of a minority group? How will it backfire on me?

Originally Posted by moughtarib

OR you're not aware and excuse my harsh language I appologize and then try to understand the realities of each statement above and review your opinion pls.

Well, moghtarib, I think that for the most part, your post is not coherent (at least for me). I'm still not sure what your point is. I hope that it'll get clearer (and mine if it's not clear) as we're discussing.

Rgds

[suomynona]

Accepting freedom of speech is accepting the right of someone to say things which are demeaning to your dearest beliefs, without threatening that person of physical harm. That's I think how it should be defined. And anything below that is a joke. And unfortunately many mix the mere fact of being disrespectful with crossing the limits of freedom of speech.

[chafic]

Originally Posted by suomynona

Accepting freedom of speech is accepting the right of someone to say things which are demeaning to your dearest beliefs, without threatening that person of physical harm. That's I think how it should be defined. And anything below that is a joke. And unfortunately many mix the mere fact of being disrespectful with crossing the limits of freedom of speech.

Right to the point, I second your post.
Thanks.

[SeekNirvana]

Originally Posted by suomynona

Accepting freedom of speech is accepting the right of someone to say things which are demeaning to your dearest beliefs, without threatening that person of physical harm. That's I think how it should be defined. And anything below that is a joke. And unfortunately many mix the mere fact of being disrespectful with crossing the limits of freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by chafic

Right to the point, I second your post.
Thanks.

Oh, shut the fcuk up both of you.

[moughtarib]

Originally Posted by chafic

Inspired by a discussion on the political forum about Salman Rushdie, I decided to open this thread to possibly get different opinions about freedom of speech. Do you draw a limit to this freedom, and if so, where, when and how do you explain it?

Moughtarib, I'll start by replying to your post here.



Moughtarib, how do you qualify disrespect? How do you differenciate between that and difference of opinions?

I believe that in all matters of life one is entitled to give his opinion whatever it may be. Yet there are certain subjects that are sensitive like religion, sexual identity,...

Firstly I don't find it appropriate that someone of one faith can/should/has the integrity to discuss and critsize another faith.
This only builds differences between them; and makes one more stubborn the least up to extremist at the max

Any subject can be approached in two ways: 1. aggresively and accusively OR 2. passively and comprehensively.

I firmly believe that the critics of Islam have no intention in "really changing and improving the issues of this faith and its followers" but to "instigate them".

There are usually more important political reasons than a "real religious ISLAH"...i will elaborate when i answer another of your below questions

Originally Posted by chafic

Do you think Europe fears Islam or Islamism?

I think that Europe doesn't fear neither Islam or Islamism (by Islamism you mean the political islamic movements). I think there is a small but steadily growing hard liner european individuals/parties/MPs who fear both:

In Islam:
1. Muslims have a different life style (girls' clothing for example) and that is a threat to their own lifestyle
2. Polygamy is an unacceptable social value
3. Muslim believers have 'too many kids' and that creates pressure on the tax system/schooling and later demographic composition

In Islamism:
1. passive islamists want laws to change and want provisions for their political beliefs in the constitution and community to be created...this is a threat because it also changes some of the foundations of what the societies they live in are
2. active islamism and the extremist one can go as far as violence for their needs...this is a security threat

Originally Posted by chafic

1- Why is it bothering? An how do you qualify Rushdie and his likes?
2- What about the cartoons?
3- What about Fitna?
4- You're right at this one.

1- The UK and her Majesty don't belong to the muslum faith to give gratitude who names Qoranic verses (who's believers believe they came down from heaven and the real words of God) as Diabolic Verses
--> Rushdie belongs to a group 'Reformists' who are actualyl two groups: passive and active; he belongs to the 'active' group who's reformist activities are creating more "stubborness" within the Muslim faith

2- I think the cartoons were a funny joke taken out of context by political muslim movements and need all that fuss in the first place. The cartoonist should be educated that no one ever made a drawing of the prophet and he went overboard and that muslims are not yet at the same "cultural acceptance and tolerance" level of Christians for example (because the analogy was that Christ was also drawn as a gay, as a hippie who smokes joint,...)...pls. don't do it again
But the problem is that several magazines took it and reprinted it for one reason: "spite"....that doesn't open dialogue, thats just pure islamophobia and hate and trying to fetch a negative reaction and not open debate

3- not many people saw it, but i think between the cartoons and fitna. the problem is really in fitna, the cartoons were a balnd joke.
Fitna basically 'visually parallels the qoran and its verses with suicide bombings , death and killing, and then parallels the killings with the muslim community, and moves on to parallel the muslim community with nazism to then show all this as a threat to gay rights, human rights, workers rights in Netherlands (growing moroccan population 100 times fold in 50 yrs....what will happen in the next 50)
--> This generalist approach creates animosity amongst two resident communities in one country and creates a lie to then build on it with more lies to come to a cheap political point: 'stop immigration' & 'return moroccans back'
The MP who created Fitna has a full right to "free express" his opposition to the foreign ministry and immigration ministry's policies without creating this hatred and lies about Muslims (of the 20 million muslims, 20 are terrorists...this doesn't mean the whole society is)

Originally Posted by chafic

No, it's not because of freedom of speech, but it's because of the failure to accept that freedom of speech. That's what should be tackled, not the other way by silencing he\she who has a different opinion, as long as that opinion doesn't advocate violence or the suspention of the freedom of others.

--> Is he FREE to create hatred and advocate animosity, no he's not (thats the line). there are laws that prevent that. the same laws that prevent anti-semitism should be applied to islamophobia

Originally Posted by chafic

1- I'm not sure of your point; Nazism held an extremist ideology of ethnic cleansing; What is in Nazism that would make you support the formation of neo-nazi parties.

Nothing, i don't agree with the Nazi or facist Ideologies in any way. It is an "example" of how Freedom of Expression is used to create hate against muslims where the paralell to it which is Nazism is banned because it creates hate against Jews/blacks/imperfect beings (abnormals)/autists...

Originally Posted by chafic

2- Could you please be more specific? Assuming it is true, then I expect one to be arguing in favor of the freedom to review whatever you want, not taking it as an justification to do the same.

Reviewing history and the maths is a matter of 'factual checks', it doesn't kill or harm anyone. It is another example of how "Freedom of Speech" is suppressed in certain areas because it creates problems with the jews and their "feelings".... we have two options:

1. Respect the feelings of the Jews and lets forget about reviewing the history and what really happened and equally respect the feeling of the Muslims and don't label them as a terrorist breeding community

2. Go on with the Islamophobia & Lets see "WHY" were Jews hated in the first place, what is it in Judaism and the way Jews were living their lives in Europe that made europeans so hateful to them for centuries up to the point of WWII?

3- What is your point here?

My point is that there are double standards; a human is a human, if he/she is killed for his Faith it should create an equal issue for society be it he's muslim, jew or of any other faith

Originally Posted by chafic

What do you mean by growing differences? And how am I happy by growing differences?

Since you don't get what i mean then i guess you didn't intend it.

Originally Posted by chafic

What do you mean by minority group? How do you know that I'm part of a minority group? How will it backfire on me?

I assumed you're lebanese. Everyone in Lebanon is part of a Minority group; which social group is more than 50%? Gender maybe if that is what your political/social identity it...but I read that Women are slightly more than Men, so you still are of a minority group :)

My point is that animosity between religious groups creates strife and problems for societies of mixed religions like ours. And that is no way forward for a consistent homogeneous society that can build common social/political values. Thats the recipe for what some call 'in3izal'

Originally Posted by chafic

Well, moghtarib, I think that for the most part, your post is not coherent (at least for me). I'm still not sure what your point is. I hope that it'll get clearer (and mine if it's not clear) as we're discussing.

I want to make my points short and not write newspapers, i guess it made the ideas less understandable. Anyway i am impressed that you're interested in this discussion. The problem is not in you but in the fact that we seldom see people who have a real interest in understanding one another

[Abufijli]

I do not think freedom of speech includes insults, we cannot go around insulting each other in the name of freedom of speech. I am sure many of the people who support such freedom of speech would physically hit me if I said something derogatory about their mother or sister.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak your mind in an intellectual manner, having the freedom to believe in whatever rocks your boat, without insulting other people.

[I_Am_LebanoN]

No limits. Literally.

[I_Am_LebanoN]

Originally Posted by Abufijli

I am sure many of the people who support such freedom of speech would physically hit me if I said something derogatory about their mother or sister.

Freedom of expression mate.

[Abufijli]

Originally Posted by I_Am_LebanoN

Freedom of expression mate.

You are trying to limit my freedom of expression by saying this, you are contradicting yourself here.

[I_Am_LebanoN]

Well, u r free to express urself as u wish after I kick ur *** (assuming u said something derogatory about my mother or sister).