Muhammad and the Bomb (threat)

flogen

Woody banned from news/media for 2 weeks for posting off topic and making sweeping and insulting statements about a religious group.

Suff

Wibbs wrote:

Agreed. I think everything is open to comment(and indeed some level of ridicule). If I don't like what I see, hear or read, I have the mature choice to switch off, change papers, disagree, sue or ignore same(the latter being the best option by far). If we treat every fringe/special group like spoiled brats we're on a hiding to nowhere and that includes them all, not just the small group of fundamentalist Muslims getting threatening over this issue. We are not children, we do have a choice.

you also have the right to challange it

Every person has a limit to what they can tolerate Wibbs!

liberalbuster

When one considers the Anti-Semitic tripe coming out of Planet Islam lately, it is indeed laughable that thay take such offence from a cartoon. We must not bow to their bullying ways. The West values its freedom, having fought many wars to protect it.
There should be a choice for Muslims living in the West, either treat Western Civilisation with respect or simply return to their Medieval hellholes.

lazydaisy

Im starting to see that Hobbes and Suff dont understand the prinicpals of free speech despite enjoying this freedom themselves.

Hobbes & Suff I will ask you again. Do you consider yourselves moderates?

I have found some quotes which I feel explains the principal better than I can.

"Free speech is to a great people what winds are to oceans and malarial regions, which waft away the elements of disease and bring new elements of health; and where free speech is stopped, miasma is bred, and death comes fast."
Henry Ward BEECHER
American Congregational preacher, orator, and lecturer (1813-1887)

"The Freedoms of Speech and Press are the necessary Conditions for the Enlightenment of Human Life, which again is the only Thing, that can save Peoples and Nations, and Experience teaches, that where these Freedoms exist, one will find comfort from much other Burdensomeness and Unpleasantness; but where it is not, and in particular where one feels deprived from it, the People either descends to the Beast or cut up rough like the Wild Animals, and in both Cases it is indeed the End to Human Life."
Niels Frederik Severin GRUNDTVIG
Danish social reformer and educationist, 1845 (1773-1872)


"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
Salman RUSHDIE
Indian-born British novelist (1947-)


You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.
* John Morley

Free speech is intended to protect the controversial and even outrageous word; and not just comforting platitudes too mundane to need protection.
- Colin Powell

flogen

liberalbuster wrote:

When one considers the Anti-Semitic tripe coming out of Planet Islam lately, it is indeed laughable that thay take such offence from a cartoon. We must not bow to their bullying ways. The West values its freedom, having fought many wars to protect it.
There should be a choice for Muslims living in the West, either treat Western Civilisation with respect or simply return to their Medieval hellholes.

Banned for 1 week for off topic posting...

... are people getting the message yet?

Gegerty

Suff wrote:

Read my post to understand my point. + where did you get america from??

If it's ok to publish offensive images of Muhammad then why is it so offensive to publish ones of the holocaust, the media is selecting what is offensive and what's not!? but isn't the media free to publish whatever they want under "Freedom of Speech" ?

some might say the holocaust is offensive to Jews, well the images are offensive to muslims! you cant have selected protection!

then they are hypocrites!

It depends what they print, they've yet to do it so its pure speculation. They called on people to come up with the best anti-holocaust or anti-American cartoon in the Iranian media. Thats where I got America from.

Depending on what they print it could be just offensive, but it could also be illegal. There's freedom of speech but only within the law. Obviously the Iranian officials will turn a blind eye, but any civilised country would clamp down on such material were it deemed to be illegal. I've seen lots of pictures, both video and photographs, of the holocaust. Some of it disturbing and I can see how it would offend people but I agree with you it should be allowed.

Printing stuff denying the holocaust for example is not the same as printing pictures of Muhammad.

Why don't they call on people to come up with the best anti-Danish cartoon? Why drag the Jews and Americans into it? It's because its not really about the cartoon. It's about picking a fight.

Suff

Gegerty wrote:

Depending on what they print it could be just offensive, but it could also be illegal. There's freedom of speech but only within the law. Obviously the Iranian officials will turn a blind eye, but any civilised country would clamp down on such material were it deemed to be illegal.

The problem is...there is no Law within Media. they can print what they want
Christ, Muhammad, hiroshima, 9/11, Holocaust.
there are sensitive issues in ou world, they should be respected under a law of some sort.

Gegerty wrote:

Printing stuff denying the holocaust for example is not the same as printing pictures of Muhammad.

They are both sensetive to Jewes and Muslims. each will be just as offended.

Gegerty wrote:

Why don't they call on people to come up with the best anti-Danish cartoon? Why drag the Jews and Americans into it? It's because its not really about the cartoon. It's about picking a fight.

Cos it's an offence and a sensitive issue in europe, while europe clearly states that the Cartoons of Muhammad is not sensetive and not offensive.
the Iranians stated that they are testing the level of "Freedom of Speech" in europe by using the Holocaust as an example. I dont agree morally but again maybe it should be published as the media's freedom of speech. Wibbs

Should the media in the west have different rights to freedom of speech to the media in the ME or anyother place in the world.
europe can publish sensetive material but other media cant?

offensive is offensive regardles of the region

flogen

Suff wrote:

The problem is...there is no Law within Media.

Any working Journalist would disagree with you 100% on that

Cos it's an offence and a sensitive issue in europe, while europe clearly states that the Cartoons of Muhammad is not sensetive and not offensive.

If I'm not mistaken the European community has made no such statement, in fact most heads of state have condemned the images...

Should the media in the west have different rights to freedom of speech to the media in the ME or anyother place in the world.
europe can publish sensetive material but other media cant?

offensive is offensive regardles of the region

It's impossible to compare the media in the ME to the European or Western media, one is state controlled the other is free (or at least half-free)

Suff

flogen wrote:

It's impossible to compare the media in the ME to the European or Western media, one is state controlled the other is free (or at least half-free)

exactly!

So one has the freedom to publish offensive images while if the other media did the same its considered illegal? this cant be right.

Media should be Free ofcourse, free to give a nutural view of the events in the world, the media in the ME should be free I agree 100%

GreeBo

Hobbes wrote:

I see somewhat Irony in this incident too..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4686410.stm

"Just because we have the right of free speech and a free media, it does not mean we may say and do as we please and not take into account the effect it will have on others."

Err yes it does.

flogen

Suff wrote:

exactly!

So one has the freedom to publish offensive images while if the other media did the same its considered illegal? this cant be right.

Media should be Free ofcourse, free to give a nutural view of the events in the world, the media in the ME should be free I agree 100%

Where are you getting illegal from?
Why would a state run newspaper print a cartoon that was against state law? ME media that prints offensive images, be they anti-semetic, anti-Israel or anti-West are not breaking any laws of their own.
The Mohammed pictures have also broken no actual laws, they just insulted people. I don't think they should have been printed; it's not a matter of censorship because i think the general message behind the cartoon was spot on, but its use of Mohammed was ignorant

flogen

GreeBo wrote:

"Just because we have the right of free speech and a free media, it does not mean we may say and do as we please and not take into account the effect it will have on others."

Err yes it does.

I think the point of that quote was that having a right doesn't give you the right to abuse it.
As I have always been told, all rights have responsibilities, you fail to live up to those responsibilities and you lose your rights.

Wibbs

Suff wrote:

there are sensitive issues in ou world, they should be respected under a law of some sort.

What should be respected is the right to publish any issue and the concommitant right to object through legal means if such a thing offends you.

the Iranians stated that they are testing the level of "Freedom of Speech" in europe by using the Holocaust as an example. I dont agree morally but again maybe it should be published as the media's freedom of speech. Wibbs ../..
So one has the freedom to publish offensive images while if the other media did the same its considered illegal? this cant be right.

IMHO It's not right at all. I say publish and be damned TBH. I can then chose to look at it or not. I can then chose to be offended or not. I can then chose to take legal action or not. I can then chose to boycott the media outlet and it's companies or not. The burning of embassies and death threats to members of the media should not, in any civilised world be part of those choices(which seems to be standard fare and only serves to increase the prejudice towards the Islamic world).

offensive is offensive regardles of the region

No it's not. For a start the cartoons in question didn't offend me in the slightest. Offence is relative. A devout Hindu could get upset if I chew into a hamburger in front of him. For yourself or a Jewish person to eat bacon would be considered offensive to both your beliefs. In some cultures it's considered offensive to point your feet at someone. These things are contextual and regional. With the world getting smaller and media becoming universal, we all have to grow up a bit for anything like understanding on both sides to happen.

flogen wrote:

Media should be Free ofcourse, free to give a nutural view of the events in the world,

It's all down to what someone defines as natural, doesn't it?

....i think the general message behind the cartoon was spot on, but its use of Mohammed was ignorant

Agreed.

lazydaisy

Suff wrote:

The problem is...there is no Law within Media. they can print what they want
Christ, Muhammad, hiroshima, 9/11, Holocaust.
there are sensitive issues in ou world, they should be respected under a law of some sort.

Would you mean Islamic law there?

Yes the media should print what they want. This is not the problem.

Look, I dont likepage 3 girls, I dont like porn. I think it's offensive to women. But should there be a law to stop it? No absolutely not.

[Question, why is the only time you see the left defending free speech is when it comes to porn?]

Do I find it offensive and insensitive when I see a woman wearing a full burkha in the NYC subways?

As a woman, yes. As a New Yorker, yes. Does that mean it should be forbidden? No.

What you are seeing in these death threats, deaths, violence and vandalism, is islamofascism.

Gegerty

Sure it could have been worse, they didn't even make fun of his homosexuality.

Freddie59

Hobbes wrote:

So what you are basically saying is it is ok for the media to be offensive to muslims only and anything from your perspective shouldn't be allowed?

No - only that this is a two-way street. For example we have the Iranians now looking for Holocaust (that's the correct spelling BTW Suff) cartoons, even though they were published in Denmark. Sauce; goose; gander.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

Banned for 1 week for off topic posting...

... are people getting the message yet?

Question - why are two people who voiced opinions contrary to, say, the ones posted by Messrs Hobbes and Suff (who are very obviously pro-Islamic and very anti-Western/free speech) now banned? Mr. Suff has been propagating anti-Israeli, and anti-Western views (some of which are racist) ad nauseum......but remains active? Why?

lazydaisy

Not only that... why dont they boycott Egypt, where they were published 3 months ago.

I suspect this has been planned.

flogen

Freddie59 wrote:

Question - why are two people who voiced opinions contrary to, say, the ones posted by Messrs Hobbes and Suff (who are very obviously pro-Islamic and very anti-Western/free speech) now banned? Mr. Suff has been propagating anti-Israeli, and anti-Western views (some of which are racist) ad nauseum......but remains active? Why?

They were posted for going off topic, and many users did the same before I made a specific warning telling them not to.
If Suff goes off topic again, or posts anything insulting to religious groups I will ban him just as quickly.

Now, back on topic, as I am tempted to ban you for going off topic also.

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

They were posted for going off topic, and many users did the same before I made a specific warning telling them not to.
If Suff goes off topic again, or posts anything insulting to religious groups I will ban him just as quickly.

Now, back on topic, as I am tempted to ban you for going off topic also.

I only asked a question - politely.

Freddie59

Suff wrote:

exactly!

So one has the freedom to publish offensive images while if the other media did the same its considered illegal? this cant be right.

Media should be Free ofcourse, free to give a nutural view of the events in the world, the media in the ME should be free I agree 100%

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?

flogen

no, final chance, freddie. Get back on topic.
If you have an issue with a perticular post feel free to PM me with details, do not bring issues up here; this thread is for discussion nor argument.

Hobbes

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.

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.

lazydaisy

Hobbes wrote:

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.

Then how come we all know what picture your talking about. Theres plenty of info about where to get an abortion in Irish papers and its easy enough for you to buy English papers. Also abortion is illegal as is prostitution and drug dealing. The papers are not a place to conduct illegal activity - thats the principal behind that.

Hobbes wrote:

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.

Hobbes, do list the US media you read or watch so we know your not generalising. Im sure most of your time is spent in front of Fox News but I'm sure you must have come across one or two of our millions of news sources.

And do explain US libel and slander laws while your at it. And also explain how the NY Times reporter ended up in jail [gaol].

flogen

lazydaisy wrote:

And do explain US libel and slander laws while your at it. And also explain how the NY Times reporter ended up in jail [gaol].

She went to jail for not revealing a source to a Senate Investigation (contempt of court) which was in connection to revealing the identity of a US spy, which is a crime.
The "actual/proven malice" ruling in US libel law that Hobbes refers to comes from the 1964 ruling on the NY Times Vs. Sullivan

Hobbes

lazydaisy wrote:

Theres plenty of info about where to get an abortion in Irish papers

Really? Which ones? Strange you said its in Irish papers yet then say its illegal.

Hobbes, do list the US media you read or watch so we know your not generalising.

Listed before in this forum. Go look. Yea I look at fox but I look at a lot of media sites. Normally if I see a story I cross reference it with other news sites to get a bigger picture.

And do explain US libel and slander laws while your at it. And also explain how the NY Times reporter ended up in jail [gaol].

Flogen already did.

the_dart

"Ok most of us would agree that the Media has a hand in getting things out of order. and I would say both media's the West and the ME."

I think most media in the West were spineless for not posting the cartoon.

Hobbes

the_dart wrote:

I think most media in the West were spineless for not posting the cartoon.

You don't even know how many papers posted it. Do you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jylland-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons

Freddie59

flogen wrote:

no, final chance, freddie. Get back on topic.
If you have an issue with a perticular post feel free to PM me with details, do not bring issues up here; this thread is for discussion nor argument.

Now - feel free to ban me. But what particular offence did I commit by that last post? as far as I can see there was nothing in it. I merely commented on another poster being confused by what you said.

lazydaisy

If that wikipedia link is correct that is a tiny amount. Yes I not only think it is cowardly but also irresponsible journalism. Shame on the west. At this point we are enabling it.

Hobbes,

There are plenty of ads for well woman, etc. Its no big secret how to get an abortion. 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.

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

Flogen did to some extent, but that was not the point of my post. I know some about US libel and slander laws, but I was reminding you that we have them.

Like what US media do you cross reference?