Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

If that wikipedia link is correct that is a tiny amount.

It isn't that tiny an amount. How many papers did you want to post? All of them? All have reported. Even those that posted cartoons may have done out of reporting vs "Freedom of speech". Some countries have laws on printing them.

There are plenty of ads for well woman,

Not the same thing. You said that papers post adverts for places to get an Abortion. I asked you which ones. Clearly you don't know.

If you did you would know that there are only certain circumstances that even the well woman clinic is allowed give information out in regards to abortions.

You can read more on it here...
http://oasis.gov.ie/health/womens_health/abortion_information.html?CONTACTSID=f0703301d428dcc815f2414d0d9928a9

Your red herring this thread with abortion references is getting out of hand. You know well thats off topic. I would have expected more from a mod.

Actually it is on topic. I am pointing out that Ireland does not have "Freedom of speech" that everyone makes out.

Also for future reference, a moderator is treated as normal user outside of thier respective forums they moderate. I don't get any breaks (and have been banned from forums before).

So how do you feel about the Egyptian paper that published the cartoons over 3 months ago?

What have my feelings got to do with it exactly? I haven't looked up the laws in Egypt regarding it. Prehaps you can tell me.

I know some about US libel and slander laws, but I was reminding you that we have them.

Why remind me when I already pointed it out?

Like what US media do you cross reference?

You I could ask in relation to what exactly. When a news story breaks I bop over to google news and type in some of the related keywords and then read from various news sources to get a better feel for the story at hand. I generally don't take note of every single site I read when I research this way.

Suff

Freddie59 wrote:

Correct me Flogen if I'm wrong on this one, but I think the point you're making is the Western Press has a great deal of freedom in what it chooses to publish, whereas ME does not. Suff is under the impression that the latter is illegal - but surely he should take that up on the ME version of boards.ie (oops I forgot that wouldn't exist - it would be surpressed). Am I correct?

the westren media is surpressed to suit political policies, look at the media in the USA, the terror alert in up and down like a Yoyo, controlling people's lives, no anti-Bush statments are allowed on TV or newspapers. even journalists that ask REAL Questions are banned from attading the white house press conference. remember the war in Iraq, a number of journalists were killed by the US when trying to cover a story that did not match the policy of the invasion , and they still restricted to this day.

remember fahrenheit 9/11, michael moore had a hard time getting it into Cinema's in the states while the rest of the world took it as if it was one of StarWars or LOTR movies.

I'm sure there are hidden/under the table laws when it comes to media publications.

the ME is restricted I agree 100% although it starting to get better in the last few years, AL Jazeera is doing a great job it's independant from any goverment.
there are 100's of ME sites equivalent Boards online, we have the freedom to express our thoughts on the goverments but even so never insult other religion icons.

flogen

Suff wrote:

remember the war in Iraq, a number of journalists were killed by the US when trying to cover a story that did not match the policy of the invasion , and they still restricted to this day.

Can you back this up, please? Either that or retract it.

lazydaisy

Hobbes wrote:

It isn't that tiny an amount. How many papers did you want to post? All of them? All have reported. Even those that posted cartoons may have done out of reporting vs "Freedom of speech". Some countries have laws on printing them. .

Its tiny in proportion to how many newspapers and journals these countries have. The US has an enormous media. Seven is ridiculous. And then they didnt even publish all of the cartoons. If this is true, thats just pathetic.

Hobbes wrote:

Actually it is on topic. I am pointing out that Ireland does not have "Freedom of speech" that everyone makes out. .

Well I would agree with you there to a point - that Ireland's free speech is limited.

Because abortion is illegal its couched in different language much like prostitution is sold under "escort services"

Hobbes wrote:

Also for future reference, a moderator is treated as normal user outside of thier respective forums they moderate. I don't get any breaks (and have been banned from forums before).

It wasnt a question of privalege.

Hobbes wrote:

What have my feelings got to do with it exactly? I haven't looked up the laws in Egypt regarding it. Prehaps you can tell me.

I cant tell you what your feelings are. You seemed to be offended by the publication of these cartoons. Im curious as to how you feel about the Egyptian one several months ago.

Hobbes wrote:

Why remind me when I already pointed it out?

You said reporters can report whatever they like in the US. If that were true we wouldnt have libel and slander laws. Though I do agree there is plenty of BS being published.

Hobbes wrote:

You I could ask in relation to what exactly. When a news story breaks I bop over to google news and type in some of the related keywords and then read from various news sources to get a better feel for the story at hand. I generally don't take note of every single site I read when I research this way.

You see this is the problem with bopping. Your getting a very fragmented picture. I suggest you read several of the larger papers and journals to get a sense of what people are hearing and do it regularly not just when news breaks. Try cspan. org They have a very thorough list of resources both American and International.

lazydaisy

Suff wrote:

the westren media is surpressed to suit political policies, look at the media in the USA, the terror alert in up and down like a Yoyo, .

No. Wrong. NYC - our terror alert is always on the second highest. The highest when we are actually being attacked.

Suff wrote:

controlling people's lives, no anti-Bush statments are allowed on TV or newspapers.
.

You clearly never ever read anything from the American press or American tv. So much for cultural imperialism.

Suff wrote:

even journalists that ask REAL Questions are banned from attading the white house press conference.
.

Do you have anything to back this up? What is your example of a real question? Do you mean people who only ask virtual or synthetic questions are allowed in?

Suff wrote:

remember fahrenheit 9/11, michael moore had a hard time getting it into Cinema's in the states while the rest of the world took it as if it was one of StarWars or LOTR movies..

Thank you for bringing this up. Hobbes was looking for a cartoon that made fun of 911 victims.

Um no, in Ireland there were only a couple of cinemas that showed it and it was way later than when it opened in the US. In the US it was widely distributed.

Hobbes

You seemed to be offended by the publication of these cartoons.

I personally am not offended by the cartoons. I am not a Muslim. But just because it doesn't offend me doesn't mean that it won't offend someone else or that I can't see that it would offend someone else.

You said reporters can report whatever they like in the US. If that were true we wouldnt have libel and slander laws.

Just because you have the laws doesn't mean dick. Take Denmarks Blasphemy laws. If they were any good it would of stopped this in its tracks.

As for US reporting what they like. Sadly they can. The "Malice" part leaves a huge loophole. And in case you missed it FoxNews is famous for actually sueing news reporters for not lying and won.

You see this is the problem with bopping. Your getting a very fragmented picture.

Which is what I want. I want a fragmented picture. If you settle on one kind of news source you get a blinkered and bias picture of a story.

Thank you for bringing this up. Hobbes was looking for a cartoon that made fun of 911 victims.

What are you on about?

Pixel8

It's all just total crap... i mean, if you put yourself in a box then you're bound to get upset about what is said about and what goes against your box. Religion puts you in a box, thats why a lot of us are non practicing catholics/prodestants over here now.
Why would anyone want to limit themselves to any set of beliefs and take **** like that personally? If you get offended by anything in this world, then its you who has the problem, not the world... these are all just ideas!

Religion is the fundamental excuse for violence and like all religions... its nonsense!

Practical philosophy anyone?

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

It varies from country to country. For example Denmarks laws as noted are very lax. They can print anything they like. Of course they can be sued for it but the point is the laws are lax.

Ireland is somewhat restrictive on some things. For example you can't print abortion info in the papers (eg. where to get one). Also Bertie showed how to censor a picture during Bushes stay.

US laws are funny sometimes. A reporter can print anything they like as long as it can't proven they did so in malice. The reason a lot of US media is full of crap.

As for the middle east it depends a lot on the country as well. Some are lax, some are very strict. However of all of them Al Jazeera claims to be the only politically independent in the M.E.

The titles of this thread is called Muhammad & The Bomb. Ideally we are discussing the threat of a repressive regime getting hold of a WMD and using it to obliterate another country initially. Raised also is the issue of whether or not we have learned anything from History.

I think this quote from a now-retired history teacher says it all:

"For the roots of our present lie deep in the past. He must understand the past to know how the present came to be."
One word - Hitler.

Freddie59

Pixel8 wrote:

It's all just total crap... i mean, if you put yourself in a box then you're bound to get upset about what is said about and what goes against your box. Religion puts you in a box, thats why a lot of us are non practicing catholics/prodestants over here now.
Why would anyone want to limit themselves to any set of beliefs and take **** like that personally? If you get offended by anything in this world, then its you who has the problem, not the world... these are all just ideas!

Religion is the fundamental excuse for violence and like all religions... its nonsense!

Practical philosophy anyone?

I am a Catholic and have seen many cartoons ridiculing my religion. Some were funny - some were not. But that is the free society we live in. People enjoy freedom of speech. It is what makes us what we are. I must respect that you have a different opinion to me - and you likewise. Pity the Arabic world hasn't the same perspective.......and they're now trying to warp ours.

Wibbs

Freddie59 wrote:

The titles of this thread is called Muhammad & The Bomb. Ideally we are discussing the threat of a repressive regime getting hold of a WMD and using it to obliterate another country initially.

Not quite. This is News/media forum. This thread is about press freedoms and responsibilities re the current issue. Try politics maybe.

"For the roots of our present lie deep in the past. He must understand the past to know how the present came to be."
One word - Hitler.

And if you understood the past you wouldn't jump to anything like the banal conclusion you just have (and precious little to do with the current state of play to boot). Apples and oranges tbh.

Hobbes

Freddie59 wrote:

The titles of this thread is called Muhammad & The Bomb. Ideally we are discussing the threat of a repressive regime getting hold of a WMD

Did you read the thread? It is not about that at all and certainly wouldn't be in the media forum if it was.

Pixel8

Well in all fairness we've had free speech for a while now and still a lot of irish will argue and justify their beliefs to the point of ridiculousness instead of just accepting that what seems right for them, might not suit others.

If we still have problems with free speech, then you cant expect nations that dont have it, to catch onto it too quick. It may not be a perfect system though, but its better than being killed for what you believe in, i suppose...!

I doubt the Arabic World could ever warp our perspectives on free speech... they're just more disciplined about their beliefs than us. When they do get free speech, they'll never turn back, its called evolution!

Suff

I dont think it's about freedom of speech.

Religious icons, beliefs should not be insulted, offended or mocked.
again some people brought up anti-Israeli (NOT anti-semetic cos arabs are semetic as well) or anti-western cartoons that get published in the ME, again remember it's politics and not religion they are mocking.

Yes there are cartoons that mocks Sharon, Bush and Blair, they are polititions and not religious icons!
can you compare Bush to christ or even Sharon to Moses? it would be MAD!
Anti-Israeli cartoons mocks the Israeli goverment and policies towards the Palestinian people, anti-Western (as some put it) mocks the War in Iraq, which almost the entire world do.

I would doubt/ challange if there were any cartoons in the ME media that mocks religious icons, beliefs of any part of the world.

if some Christians (in the west) dont get offended by offensive images of Christ that doesnt mean that the rest of the world should behave like them!

Violence is not the answer and it's really sad/shameful that some protests became violent but we have to look forward and try to see how can we avoid this kind of clash within the world.

Freddie59

Suff wrote:

I dont think it's about freedom of speech.

The whole argument is about freedom of speech. Full stop.

Suff wrote:

Religious icons, beliefs should not be insulted, offended or mocked.

You are quite right. But unfortunately that is a side effect of freedom of expression, a close relation to freedom of speech. For example an 'artistic' version of the crucifixion is on display in London at the moment. It is obscene and an insult to our Creator, but that same Creator (not I) will, in time, deal with the individual concerned. He may even forgive him. But you won't see me attack the British embassy because of it.

Suff wrote:

Violence is not the answer and it's really sad/shameful that some protests became violent but we have to look forward and try to see how can we avoid this kind of clash within the world.

Nice to see you say that. I'm all for that sentiment.

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote:

Not quite.

Only because you (and maybe one other) think so. You're entitled to your opinion.

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote:

And if you understood the past you wouldn't jump to anything like the banal conclusion you just have (and precious little to do with the current state of play to boot).

It has EVERYTHING to do with the current state of affairs. It's just another example of a mindless minority, coupled with a gormless Government, that has us where we are. When you throw in a little drop of Western liberalism which supports it, how is it any different to the 1930s?

lazydaisy

Suff wrote:

Religious icons, beliefs should not be insulted, offended or mocked.

.

Why not? Thats how democracy began -with iconoclasm.

Suff

Freddie59.. the danish flag in your sig suggests that Muslims are against freedom is under attack.

if freedom in your mind is to offened/insult religious icons from any religion/ faith then I am against that freedom!

pH

Suff wrote:

Freddie59.. the danish flag in your sig suggests that Muslims are against freedom is under attack.

if freedom in your mind is to offened/insult religious icons from any religion/ faith then I am against that freedom!

I'm against your freedom to be against that freedom.

Suff

pH wrote:

I'm against your freedom to be against that freedom.

good one

but my point is that religious beliefs should be respected, who the hell are we to mock them!?

flogen

Please take this discussion away from the "battle of civilisations" theme and back to the media's role in this issue.
I'm getting bored of holding people's hands in regards telling them what can and cannot be discussed here; next time I imagine I'll just lock the thread.

And do not reply to this post or your comments will be treated as off topic.

Freddie59

Suff wrote:

Freddie59.. the danish flag in your sig suggests that Muslims are against freedom is under attack.

I don't quite understand what you mean - but the reason the flag is there is to show my support of the Danish media's (and in turn the Western media's) right of freedom and expression of speech. I do agree that, in some people's eyes, the publication of the cartoons was not right. But it is no different a situation to other inflammatory or insulting cartoons printed about a plethora of different subjects. That is what freedom is about - freedom to express; freedom to speak; freedom to criticise; freedom to debate. In short p www.boards.ie

Freddie59

Suff wrote:

Freddie59.. the danish flag in your sig suggests that Muslims are against freedom is under attack.

if freedom in your mind is to offened/insult religious icons from any religion/ faith then I am against that freedom!

I don't quite understand what you mean - but the flag is there to show my support for the Danish media's right (and by default the western media's right) to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I do agree that, in some people's eyes, the cartoons were offensive.

But they were no different to cartoons previously published about a plethora of different subjects down through the years. That is the core of our western freedoms: freedom to express; freedom to speak; freedom to choose; freedom to debate; freedom to criticise. In short - www.boards.ie
Western freedom in action.

pH

Suff wrote:

but my point is that religious beliefs should be respected, who the hell are we to mock them!?

Are you sure you're not saying that your beliefs should be respected or beliefs you agree with should be respected. Are you saying that no-one in the media should mock *any* belief, or just religous ones because they're special?

The western press (and to be fair most other press) has a long history of cartoons. Instead of a long winded editorial - the cartoon makes its point using an *exagerated* caricature and humour.

As to who are we to mock them - our media has a long history of satire:

Satire is a mode of challenging accepted notions by making them seem ridiculous. It usually occurs only in an age of crisis, when there exists no absolute uniformity but rather two sets of beliefs. Of the two sets of beliefs, one holds sufficient power to suppress open attacks on the established order, but not enough to suppress a veiled attack.

Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit leveled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire.

--Jacob Bronowski & Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition From Leonardo to Hegel, p. 252 (1960; as repub. in 1993 Barnes & Noble ed.).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

I think that careful reading of the 2nd paragraph may give you some insight into the current 'crisis' Note it was written in 1960!

You have to accept that Islam's "accepted notions" are going to be continually challenged, often through satire/mocking in the western press. The only possible way of curtailing this is subtle and not so subtle threats and acts of violence as we have already seen (Rushdie and Van Gogh etc). It is unlikely that european states are going to enact draconian censorship measures at this stage, and I personally hope that threats and violence will not work.

lazydaisy

Suff wrote:

good one

but my point is that religious beliefs should be respected, who the hell are we to mock them!?

Who the "hell" are you to tell anyone not to?

Catholics dont care if people outside the religion use birth control. Jews dont care if non jews dont celebrate the sabbath after sundown on friday. Why is it that Muslims want everyone else to conform to their values?

Once you inhibit freedom of the press/speech you are doomed. I would think the Irish of all people would understand that. That is how the RC church got so much power.

Wibbs

lazydaisy wrote:

Catholics dont care if people outside the religion use birth control. Jews dont care if non jews dont celebrate the sabbath after sundown on friday. Why is it that Muslims want everyone else to conform to their values?

Very true. There is hope from an unlikely source though http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4703260.stm

Freddie59 wrote:

Only because you (and maybe one other) think so. You're entitled to your opinion.

I refer you to my original post "This is News/media forum. This thread is about press freedoms and responsibilities re the current issue. Try politics maybe." Plus if you think the the "other" is Hobbes and we think the same, I suggest we're probably right as we tend to agree on bugger all.

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

Catholics dont care if people outside the religion use birth control. Jews dont care if non jews dont celebrate the sabbath after sundown on friday. Why is it that Muslims want everyone else to conform to their values?

I don't think it's that they don't care, they just don't act in a violent manner; the same as most Muslims across the world; it just so happens that the ones who preach hate are the ones that the media notice more or want to notice more.

secret_squirrel

Freddie59 wrote:

That is the core of our western freedoms: freedom to express; freedom to speak; freedom to choose; freedom to debate; freedom to criticise. In short - www.boards.ie

Your example is laughable. If you had been on boards.ie for more than 5 minutes you would know that all of those freedoms are limited here. Generally for good reasons.

You seem to have problems grasping the fact that there is nowhere that doesnt have limits on freedom of speech in some shape or form. Arguably we in the west have more freedom of speech than those in the middle east however its still limited.

Most Western Papers freedom of speech is still limited by their owners, their editors and the demographics of their readship.

Whats really the core of the issue here is the fact that our greater freedom of speech requires of us to actually consider whether others might be offended by something we say or do and practise self censorship accordlingly. Arguably this is what the Artist and Newspapers failed to do. Another good example of someone who failed to do that is Salman Rushdie.

Both examples chose not to censor themselves, therefore both should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I dont condone the violence directed towards them, but Im not sure money should be wasted defending them from the consenquences of those actions when they knew in advance the likely outcome.

Just because we have freedom of speech doesnt mean that its always a good idea to exercise it.

Wibbs

secret_squirrel wrote:

Just because we have freedom of speech doesnt mean that its always a good idea to exercise it.

While I take your points generally about the limits of freedom of speech, I would say that to have anything like approaching freedom of speech/expression/media, it has to be exercised without fear of violent repression. If not the term rings very hollow.

lazydaisy

I bet Bill Hicks is rolling in his grave. Lenny Bruce too.