The West- Free Speech Hypocrites

hatrickpatrick

The Bishop! wrote: »

Just to clarify, the pure libertarian position that i'm referring to would be the one espoused by Ron Paul in the U.S. for example.

Paul voted against and many libertarians vehemently disagree with the Civil Rights Act (that outlaws major forms of discrimination against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities and women).

For instance, Paul thinks that it should be someone's right to open a bar or restaurant and make it 'whites only'.

This type of 'freedom' is counterproductive in modern society imo.

We're talking about freedom of speech. Those are actions, not speech.

Chuck Stone

I agree with the premise in the OP but I think it should be noted that most nations described as 'the west' are centuries ahead of other medieval ****-holes like Saudi Arabia.

Also, you can make a living in the west as a critical public intellectual (see, Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky). Public intellectuals in the former east were sent to gulags or simply liquidated. There are no critical public intellectuals in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc because it would mean almost certain death.

Edit: With freedom comes responsibility. Take that scourge of the north Ian Paisley; he used his freedom of speech to whip people into a state of murderous paranoia. You can be certain a lot of innocent people were murdered because of the effect Paisley's psychotic raving had on their killers.

'Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners'.

Ian Paisley

After a loyalist rally in 1968, he justified the burning of Catholic homes

philologos

Einhard wrote: »

The non-evidenciary nature of religion means it doesn't receive protection under libel laws. To liken criticisms, parodies or simple insults against a (makey uppy) religion to comments from holocaust deniers is treading on dangerous ground.

That is only an atheists assumption with no substance whatsoever. It's a rubbish reason for opposing blasphemy laws too. Why do you expect society to assume what atheists assume about God, or about faith?

The Bishop!

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We're talking about freedom of speech. Those are actions, not speech.

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

thebman

The Bishop! wrote: »

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

I disagree, I think Ron Paul would probably give the same answer in both situations.

Now a right wing Republican might be hypocritical on the issue like Sarah Palin.

All I know is I don't care either way and I'm an equal opportunities joker. Among my friends, mocking catholicism is much more popular than mocking Muslims probably because most of us went to schools run by catholics.

Not one of my friends has been told he shouldn't be saying that except maybe by their parents.

hatrickpatrick

The Bishop! wrote: »

True. I don't want to go off topic too much, but to give another example of a libertarian position relating more to speech maybe.

Please someone correct me if i'm wrong, but if i was to go around shouting "Muslims out of our country now!" or "Jews out now!", a Ron Paul type libertarian would defend my right to say that or print it or broadcast it without sanction.
Similarly, if i painted "Muslims out!" in 2 foot letters on the wall of my house, their stance would be that i'm perfectly within my rights.

I personally think the European approach is far more sensible. That freedom of speech is respected, but hate speech should be discouraged by some means.

Taking action to further those statements should indeed be illegal, but you should be allowed to simply say it if you want to.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~ Voltaire

Of course, should anyone act on your statements they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Criminalizing you for simply saying it goes much too far in my view.

Jonny7

Einhard wrote: »

@ Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy....

You're not addressing any of my points, so I'm not going to address yours.

This is my point: We say we are for freedom of expression. We tell this to Muslims when they complain about anti-Muslim films and cartoons. And yet, when one examines it, it is clear that we are not for freedom of expression in all instances, but have a skewed version of it. That's the point of my posts. Address that if you want but please stop dragging it off topic.

Surely that example has more to do with religious (in)tolerance?

As for the bolded sentence, well I suggest you don't use your "freedom of expression" to run down the street yelling fire or chatting about bombs in the airport queue.

Eggy Baby!

Boards.ie is a microcosm of this, where dissenting posters are simply banned and silenced. An echo chamber, devoid of intelligent and rational discussion, seems to be their ultimate goal.

By 'dissenting' you mean...? I consider my views to pretty unorthodox at times, yet I am still here..

Laminations

Einhard wrote: »

I realise that, but as I've pointed out twice now, several European countries have laws against offending or insulting specific groups. Not about inciting hatred against them, merely offending their sensibilities.

Also: you say that criticising a group is not covered by freedom of expression. And that's my point.

No. Criticising a group is not covered under freedom of expression (though it depends on the nature of the criticism) and that group, no matter who they are, have a legal route that they can take if they feel maligned. So muslims as a group are protected equally by libel, slander, defamation and incitement to hatred laws. Their beliefs however are not. Criticising a groups beliefs is covered under freedom of expression and cannot be adjudicated on in court due to no evidence about gods and little accurate information on prophets.

Also I haven't seen similar criticism of group beliefs be hypocritically punished in Europe. If the two group examples you refer to are in the text box of the OP I don't see them. All I see is a hodgepodge of countries and their separate systems of law which will be more or less conservative. The Netherlands seems to have the widest ranging laws against offence but they cover religion too. But in reality, generally in Europe and 'the West' all groups come in for parody and laughs are made at their expense - and people feel quite free to do this, no matter how crude their comedy is to others. Your handful of examples does not make an entire continent hypocritical.

So which criticism of a groups beliefs has reaulted in punishment in Europe?

Finally just a point about criticism of Islam (not Muslims). It is very common for comments made against Islam to be reframed as comments about muslims. Somehow if you have a problem with Islam then you must hate all muslims. I think Scientology is a complete joke but I don't hate Tom Cruise or John Travolta. I should be allowed air my views that Scientology is a joke and their alien gods are spaghetti monsters, but my beliefs of their beliefs shouldn't be used to incite hatred against followers.

Its a thin somewhat flexible line surrounded on either side by a grey area but that's what you get in many areas of the law.

Laminations

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaTeacsSoQ#

That's a good video on it and where I had thought your OP was coming from. There are many topics where jokes can be deemed as socially taboo and crossing the line. The problem is if we rush to make something socially taboo, to make people think twice about crude comments against a religion, we might make the mistake of limiting all criticism or negative comments about religion or belief system. It would be a retrograde step. The issue of insulting Islam or any other religion should remain out of the legal system. It is unlike comments on race or ability or ethnicity or sexuality.

You should be allowed have views on views once your views out inciting hatred. Denying the Holocaust in Germany is particularly offensive and illegal due to historical issues. You will get contextual differences in what is acceptable and what is not in all countries.

BlaasForRafa

philologos wrote: »

That is only an atheists assumption with no substance whatsoever. It's a rubbish reason for opposing blasphemy laws too. Why do you expect society to assume what atheists assume about God, or about faith?

Because its based on evidence and facts, religion is not. Its not atheists fault that some people believe in utter nonsense, religious people should not be protected from being told that they are idiots.

This is where the argument conflating blasphemy laws with anti holocaust-denier laws is false. The holocaust actually happened, if denying the existence of the holocaust were to become the norm then the likelihood of it happening again increases.

philologos

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Because its based on evidence and facts, religion is not. Its not atheists fault that some people believe in utter nonsense, religious people should not be protected from being told that they are idiots.

This is where the argument conflating blasphemy laws with anti holocaust-denier laws is false. The holocaust actually happened, if denying the existence of the holocaust were to become the norm then the likelihood of it happening again increases.

An assumption isn't based on evidence or 'facts'. If it were we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

I'm anti-blasphemy laws. Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

I'm anti-blasphemy laws. Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

What evidence?
Do you have verifiable evidence that god.exists?

Wiggles88

philologos wrote: »

Yet I believe there's evidence to suggest that Christianity is true.

I love that one:
My beliefs are based on evidence.
Whats your evidence based on?
.....belief


:pac:

Chuck Stone

Derailment imminent. Brace for impact.

philologos

Wiggles88 wrote: »

I love that one:
My beliefs are based on evidence.
Whats your evidence based on?
.....belief


:pac:

You'd do better if that was actually what I said. I didn't say it was based on belief at all. I've posted about my reasons for believing in Jesus many many times before and I'm more than happy to do so again if you PM me or go on the Christianity forum.

My main point in calling that out was to suggest that law shouldn't be based on atheistic claims concerning other belief systems. That's as much a violation of impartiality concerning religion or lack of religion as someone trying to pass laws because a particular holy book said so.

The reason we should be anti-blasphemy laws is because we do support liberty of speech and liberty of conscience, not because we want to apply atheistic tripe to law.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Derailment imminent. Brace for impact.

Well I think the mods would allow a slight thread derailment for evidence of the existence of the Christian god, no?

And it cuts to the very heart of the issue, that religious beliefs cannot and should not be treated the same as race, ethnicity, disability etc. You have a right to your good name and protections in the law against libel and slander etc. but you've no right to demand those same protections for your gods, prophets, imaginary friends, alien overloads or any other such transcendental beings.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

You'd do better if that was actually what I said. I didn't say it was based on belief at all. I've posted about my reasons for believing in Jesus many many times before and I'm more than happy to do so again if you PM me or go on the Christianity forum.

My main point in calling that out was to suggest that law shouldn't be based on atheistic claims concerning other belief systems. That's as much a violation of impartiality concerning religion or lack of religion as someone trying to pass laws because a particular holy book said so.

The reason we should be anti-blasphemy laws is because we do support liberty of speech and liberty of conscience, not because we want to apply atheistic tripe to law.

A holy book saying so is not comparable to the weight of research and evidence saying so. Laws can be tested, information gathered and assessed to distinguish good laws and bad laws. While philosophy (ethics especially) should inform legal interpretation and policy that is very different to religion.

You don't believe based on evidence, you believe as a matter of faith, the point is you don't require evidence for your religious beliefs, nor can any evidence be provided to support or refute those beliefs.

philologos

Laminations wrote: »

A holy book saying so is not comparable to the weight of research and evidence saying so. Laws can be tested, information gathered and assessed to distinguish good laws and bad laws. While philosophy (ethics especially) should inform legal interpretation and policy that is very different to religion.

You don't believe based on evidence, you believe as a matter of faith, the point is you don't require evidence for your religious beliefs, nor can any evidence be provided to support or refute those beliefs.

You claim that the research and evidence shows Christianity to be without basis. I'm saying that claim really isn't founded. Where we certainly find out that that is false is if we look to the central thesis of the Christian faith, and see how well it holds up. Something I'm more than happy to walk anyone through via PM or on the Christianity forum.

Atheist claims that there is no foundation for Christian belief, or any other belief have no place in law. If I found out my MP was advocating atheism while seating in parliament that's their vote gone as far as I'm concerned.

I disagree with you, I do believe on evidence. I believe on eyewitness testimony, I believe on Christianity's impact in my life and in the lives of others, I believe also because Christianity is manifest in reality - concerning the origins of creation, concerning morality, concerning the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus. Biblical history, archaeology also show the Bible to be an accurate record of history in many respects (take a walk around the British Museum in London sometime). The New Testament itself is the most authentic account in ancient history that we have in the world today due to the large number of manuscripts. The New Testament encourages skeptical thinking and examinations of the claims of the authors continually. There's more evidence for Christianity than there is for atheism as far as I can tell. So of course I'll challenge your claim that there isn't any.

Atheism has no role in law, or legal interpretation. Atheistic bias shouldn't be allowed to govern our societies. You claim that atheism is based on "research and evidence" but this simply isn't true.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

You claim that the research and evidence shows Christianity to be without basis.

No I don't claim that. I'm saying that no evidence can be provided to support or refute the main belief in a religion - the existence of a god.

philologos

Laminations wrote: »

No I don't claim that. I'm saying that no evidence can be provided to support or refute the main belief in a religion - the existence of a god.

Simply put I clearly disagree with you, and I don't think there's any basis for making that claim on this thread.

Impartiality in respect to religion in law is better than applying an atheists assumption to law. When we apply the latter, it gets dangerous. We've been through this in Europe already.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

Atheism has no role in law, or legal interpretation. Atheistic bias shouldn't be allowed to govern our societies. You claim that atheism is based on "research and evidence" but this simply isn't true.

I also don't claim atheism is based on evidence and research. It is based on the rejection of beliefs that cannot be proven, that cannot be falsified, that cannot be subjected to assessment by the scientific methods. Atheists would also reject beliefs that there's a teapot orbiting the earth, or anything else too small to ever be observed to be verified or rejected. I'm an agnostic or possibilian by the way, not an atheist. See David Eagleman for more detail on that.

Laminations

philologos wrote: »

Simply put I clearly disagree with you, and I don't think there's any basis for making that claim on this thread.

Impartiality in respect to religion in law is better than applying an atheists assumption to law. When we apply the latter, it gets dangerous. We've been through this in Europe already.

I'm not suggesting we encourage an atheistic state. Freedom of religion is important but that freedom should not extend to the state protecting your beliefs from criticism, parody or insult, although you should be protected from persecution, discrimination or threats against your safety. You can believe your god is great, I can believe he isn't. The state shouldn't try and uphold or protect your beliefs as theres no evidence for them or beliefs to the contrary. You do not have the right to unmolested beliefs.

Brown Bomber

Laminations wrote: »

Einhard, although we may have libel laws and slander laws and punish or imprison people for denying the Holocaust or spreading hate, these are only in cases where the comments are indefensible or untrue

This is false.

Under German Law:

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)
(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

You could be imprisoned in Germany for stating the truth about the Katyn massacre (carried out by the Russians not the Germans) until the 90's.

And now you can be imprisoned in some Eastern European countries for stating that the Germans carried out the massacre.

Brown Bomber

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

I

The courts make certain it is applied fairly in each case.

Really?

Which of the following was ads were banned by US courts and which were permitted?

One of the ads is "“not only protected speech — it is core political speech,” and the other's cancellation was "reasonable and viewpoint neutral". Can you explain the difference to me? Because I really don't see it...

AD 1:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef017744d4c663970d-300wi

AD 2

http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/.a/6a00d834520b4b69e20147e0fa87fb970b-600wi

Brown Bomber

Toshchiy Imperatritsy Vselennoy wrote: »

It is their forum they may run it how they wish. I think you might be biased though.

He may be biased but he has a point. The double-standards presented in OP spills over onto this site too. For example: "laugh" about "Jewish perfidy" and your banned http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74470672 while on the other hand boards will defend your right to post graphic images of Mohammed raping a donkey and post about masturbating over pictures of Mohammed. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79099526

Seaneh

decimatio wrote: »

So all I have to do to make mormon or evangelist missionaries go away is to be rude? Fantastic!

Or just politely say "sorry, I'm not interested, please go away" and they will.

Seaneh

Laminations wrote: »

What evidence?
Do you have verifiable evidence that god.exists?

start a thread about it if you want to talk about that subject and **** off derailling this thread.

philologos

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not suggesting we encourage an atheistic state. Freedom of religion is important but that freedom should not extend to the state protecting your beliefs from criticism, parody or insult, although you should be protected from persecution, discrimination or threats against your safety. You can believe your god is great, I can believe he isn't. The state shouldn't try and uphold or protect your beliefs as theres no evidence for them or beliefs to the contrary. You do not have the right to unmolested beliefs.

I never said I wanted to shield Christianity from criticism. What I wanted to do is challenge your claim that there's no evidence for Christianity. That opinion is irrelevant to law making. Freedom of conscience and speech is what is most important. You don't have a right to enshrine your opinion into law.

dlofnep

While I accept that many countries have certain legislation which is counter to true freedom of speech, I don't accept that an attack on Islam could be construed as an attack on Muslims. If someone criticises the fact that Muhammad had sex with a child, that is their right to do so. This is not an attack on Muslims. An attack on Muslims would be something that specifically targets them as a collective of people - IE: Stating that all Muslims as terrorists, and harassing Muslims on the streets, throwing a myriad of insults at them.

There are many issues that need to be unrestricted in freedom of speech, and freedom to criticises or satirise religion is one of them. I agree that if people wish to reject the holocaust, they should have the right to do so - even if their views are completely without merit. I see it as no different than the wackos in the conspiracy forum, who think that lizards are running the world.

America generally gets it right on freedom of speech most of the time, Europe - less so.