The Farce of Western Free Speech

[Gufi]

Media ownership is extremely concentrated in the West. (Other parts of the world are irrelevant because it is Western media which dominates the world). A handful of companies decide what the world gets to hear.

6 cooperation own most of the media 90 percent, and the greatest chunk is owned by Murdoch who has tweeted anti Islamic posts blaming all Muslims for what happened in Paris. The article is quite funny because of what Rowling and a comedian tweet later it is worth a read

 

[Bang Galore]

it would be logical to eat beef but do not make fun of Hindus in a specific way. You can discuss what you want about religion in a polite way and not insult others. If we can talk politely online we respect each other. If you start insulting things I believe in do you expect me to respect or talk politely with you.
the issue at hand here is that if muslims told hindus while eating beef that they are degrading them that would be wrong. To draw satire about Hindu belief would be wrong. Do you get it ?

You obviously don't follow much that happens. Pretty much that belief gets fun poked at all the time. Many times deliberately. On this very forum, Pakistani members deliberately have put up pictures of slaughtered cows because they think it will anger & irritate many Hindus. If you know the history of deliberate slaughter of cows by Muslim rulers in Hindu temples, you will understand that this is not new. My point is simple - we have all moved on from early expressions of religion & live in the 21st century. Any religious taboo cannot expect to be treated differently (watch Pakistani TV shows on Hindus & Hinduism) and while protests are legitimate if one feels like it, there surely should be common sense underlining all actions. You are welcome to eat beef, welcome to mock Hindu Gods & beliefs (as many do) but you should also develop a thicker skin in this world of many viewpoints. Not doing so does not mean that you will get mocked any less, only that it will affect you disproportionately more.

 

[Gufi]

On this very forum, Pakistani members deliberately have put up pictures of slaughtered cows because they think it will anger & irritate many Hindus.

ok my question when you report it to mature mods do they remove these pictures?

welcome to mock Hindu Gods & beliefs

my religion forbids me from insulting you or ur religion the issue is most Pakistanis here do not know their own religion let alone have the capacity to understand how to respect others.

 

[timetravel]

You missed the point.
Cartoons - or any speech -- denying the Holocaust is illegal in France.
The magazine would be punished by French law if they punished such a cartoon.



There is only one law in the world. From the beginning of time until the end.

Might is right.

As I wrote, if you are powerful militarily, economically and culturally, you can make your own rules and the world will follow. Suitable "justifications" can be spin doctored and enforced.

No I have no problems with it. If I say something which hurts Christians, it is not obligatory for me to say something which hurts Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs also.

Just think you cannot publish Cartoons of Momahed in KSA, Pakistan. Right.

Maybe agreed they cannot publish antisemitism as its against laws. But there are several other countless publications which make fun of jews and publish antisemitism articles. So world is full of people writing about each other. It is not fair to point to this magazine and say they don't publish this or that.

Everyone is free to publish what they want, and no one can be forced to publish what they do not want. You are free to publish as much anti jews articles as you like. But will you publish Mohamed Cartoons if Jews complain??

 

[Maxtini]

your logic has flaws. Let me explain them to you in simple terms. When Muslims kill cows for no religious reasons only as satire like those cartoons then it should be offensive because they are targetting you. When we insult you by making cartoons about slaughtering cows n link it to hindu religion it becomes offensive. Is it part of any religion to insult other religions? Tell me i have 600 messages plus now if any one of them has been offensive to any religion.

Being offended is subjective matter, the offensiveness and insult you described is your own perception. You have your own reasoning, but that may not apply for others. You don't feel butchering cow is offensive because your intention is not to insult Hindus (but Hindus feel offended according to their perception), just as the western media don't feel satirizing religion is offensive because their intention is not to insult Muslims (but muslims feel offended according to their perception).

No one feel offended (only annoyed) by satire in the west and even in secular asian nation. Because satire is made to send message for improvement not for insulting and deningrating someone.

For example, does this Indonesian satire insulting Australia Ex-PM? No, neither Indonesian nor Australians feel offended by that because the intention of this satire is to protest and send messages to Australia government regarding their policies to Indonesia.

This has to do with cultural attitude~ and the solution is for everyone to get over it and respect everyone freedom of expression.

 

[Gufi]

. You are free to publish as much anti jews articles as you like. But will you publish Mohamed Cartoons if Jews complain??

first of all the cartoons published are not anti jew. They are not anti religion at all. Most show the murder of children and the Israeli PM as a butcher because of what is happening in the world at the moment. It has nothing to do with religion. It is like a cartoon where you might show a Pakistani politician or someone else being cruel or stupid.

This has to do with cultural attitude~ and the solution is for everyone to get over it and respect everyone freedom of expression.

the day the freedom of expression extends to cartoons denying the holocaust being allowed in France then come and talk to me.

For example, does this Indonesian satire insulting Australia Ex-PM? No, neither Indonesian nor Australians feel offended by that because the intention of this satire is to protest and send messages to Australia government regarding their policies to Indonesia.

you seemed sensible when i first started talking. Listen there is a difference between religion and world affairs. Even you accept that. And even India has laws against insulting religion. Go read what Ghandi had to say about insulting other religions.

 

[Bang Galore]

ok my question when you report it to mature mods do they remove these pictures?

I don't report because I'm never offended (not here anyways). Giving someone that power over you is foolish.

Here's a news article that might be interesting. It involved a purported interview with Aamir Khan which suggested that Islam was somehow better and it could not easily be made fun off when compared to Hinduism and therefore suggesting that it is better. All that in a fake interview -obviously religious scruples does not prevent moral lapses..

Aamir Khan sends legal notice to Pakistani websites for ‘fabricated’ PK interview – The Express Tribune

 

[timetravel]

first of all the cartoons published are not anti jew. They are not anti religion at all. Most show the murder of children and the Israeli PM as a butcher because of what is happening in the world at the moment. It has nothing to do with religion. It is like a cartoon where you might show a Pakistani politician or someone else being cruel or stupid.

It is not obligatory for them to publish anti jews articles.

 

[gambit]

It is always entertaining to watch the Muslims kvetch against the Holocaust denial laws.

If hypocrisy is truly the focus, then one should look no further than the US regarding hypocritical laws -- the American Indians. But when was the last time any American on this forum see any criticisms regarding how unfair is the US government treats favorably the American Indians over other US citizens ? Never. In US states where gambling is illegal, the American Indian tribes in those states are immune from legal prosecution. On reservation land, the American Indians are largely left to their own business. Anyone want to do any business with the American Indians, they will have to be vetted by the US federal government. In short, there are US laws that specifically targets -- in favor -- of a very specific demographic.

The various Holocaust denial laws in Europe are not even 1/10th of what we have in the US in favoring the American Indians. In Germany, Holocaust denial laws are accompanied by laws banning Nazi symbols, including the Nazi salute so loved by the Muslims. In Australia, there are similar laws to the US in favoring the Autralian Aboriginals. Do the Australian Muslims on this forum moan about that ? No.

List of laws concerning Indigenous Australians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the Germans, the Holocaust denial and criminalization of Nazi symbols laws are public sentiments of how they feel about that dark period of what they believe to be a glorious history of a great people. For France and the French, their Holocaust denial laws are equally public sentiments of their moral disgust for the many French who collaborated with the Nazis to produce the horror that is the Holocaust. For Germany and France, Holocaust denial is a national embarrassment that must be confronted and do so with the full measure of morality and law. The Torah is not protected by German or French laws. Rather, Holocaust denial laws are intended to be prophylactic against the still existing Nazism ideology and its supporters, not to place Jews any degree over other citizens. Their Holocaust denial laws are far less about Jews than it is about the makers of those laws and the national shame they felt about their peoples having a hand in the atrocity that involved Jews, non-whites, homosexuals, and assorted 'inferior' humans.

Just as modern Americans feels somewhat 'responsible' for their ancestors' cruelty towards the natives who were in the country before their ancestors, or modern Australians feels similarly for their ancestors's cruelty towards the Australian Aboriginals, the Germans and the French have similar feelings of being 'responsible' for the Holocaust. The Federal Republic of Germany, aka 'West Germany', officially disapproved the first verse -- Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles -- from the national anthem, out of the fear of even an appearance of association with Nazi Germany.

The 1954 World Cup: Triumph of a New Germany | History Today

...a boozy section of the German fans began singing the banned first verse of the national anthem – ‘Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles’ rather than the Federal Republic’s officially sanctioned third verse – ‘Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit’ (unity, justice and freedom). Foreign journalists present immediately took note.

- Muslims on this forum demands Americans feels 'responsible' for Viet Nam, Korea, or Iraq, but insists Germans and French be neutral about their participation in producing the Holocaust.

- Muslims on this forum believes in the proven lie that is 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', but insists the evidence heavy Holocaust is a fraud.

- Muslims on this forum expects white Americans of today to feel a collective guilt for three generations old what their white ancestors did to blacks, but want modern Germans to shelve what their ancestors did to Jews just barely one generation ago.

In the abstract, the freedom of speech is absolute and should be unrestrained, but in reality, expression of support for Nazism when that odious ideology is still around is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and all supports laws restraining the freedom of speech in those extremely unique circumstances. The Germans and their fellow Europeans who have Holocaust denial laws are not gathering in mass protests over those laws about hypocrisy. Just like the Americans and American Indians, all of us who have these seemingly hypocritical laws know that despite the appearance of such a contradiction, those laws serves a greater good and equally important directly harm no one. Preventing the expression of support for and promotion of Nazism does not deny anyone government benefits, opportunities in the capitalist enterprises, travel, or elevate any group, minority or else, over others. A German Jew cannot demand the German government deny welfare benefits to a neo-Nazi.

Comparisons are inevitable and it is a joke upon the Muslims that they would complain about Holocaust denial laws, a relatively minor inconvenience upon all citizens under those laws' jurisdictions, when the Muslims' own countries have much greater restraints on the freedom of speech upon targeted minorities. Ethicists and moralists may not always agree to issues regarding human behaviors, but often they do agree on the odds of behaviors occurring under favorable environments. If the US and the Americans have as much direct contributions to the rise of Nazism as Germany and the Germans did, or contributions to the same the way France and other European countries did, those would be favorable conditions for the US and Americans to support their own versions of Holocaust denial laws. But do take note that there is a US Supreme Court decision to uphold a law restraining the freedom of speech of US white supremacists.

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds VA Cross-Burning Ban But Sends Law Back to State Court for Refinement | American Civil Liberties Union

RICHMOND, VA - The United States Supreme Court today ruled that KKK member Barry Black could not be convicted of a crime under Virginia's cross-burning statute because of the law's unconstitutional presumption that all cross-burning is intended to intimidate. However, the court upheld the other main provision of the law, which allows the banning of cross-burning when it can be shown that its purpose it to intimidate others.

For the US, burning a cross under certain circumstances is illegal. Why is this significant ? Because at one point in US history, the country and her citizens had direct contributions to a cruel national policy towards blacks. Today, persecuting white supremacy expressions under narrow conditions does not elevate blacks and other minorities over whites.

But let us grant some latitude to the argument that suppression of one group elevate other groups in relative perspective -- looking up from below. Fine. Then let us examine the reasons that became justifications for such a suppression. Do I want to suppress the argument in favor of robbery, rape, and murder ? Yes, I do. Convicted criminals believes nothing wrong with robbery, rape, and murder. Nothing wrong in the sense that such heinous acts are acceptable to them, even when they know the rest of the population do not share the same sentiments. Does that elevate me above them ? Yes, it does and I have no problems with being so 'superior' a person. Just like the Muslims in their countries have no problems believing they are 'superior' to the Christians and Jews based upon their own reasons and justifications, of them we know plenty about. The difference here is that being a Christian or Jew does not rob anyone of anything for being a Buddhist or an atheist.

This is not about hypocrisy, as alleged by the Muslims, but about petty jealousy towards a false perception of favoritism. How about a giant pacifier ?

 

[Maxtini]

you seemed sensible when i first started talking. Listen there is a difference between religion and world affairs. Even you accept that. And even India has laws against insulting religion. Go read what Ghandi had to say about insulting other religions.

"There is a difference between religion and world affairs" only applies to you not to the West. And it is not the west to blame when they do something that does not apply to them, that is satirize religion.

 

[Gufi]

I don't report because I'm never offended (not here anyways). Giving someone that power over you is foolish.

if you protested they would have been deleted and that is respecting others.

"There is a difference between religion and world affairs" only applies to you not to the West. And it is not the west to blame when they do something that does not apply to them, that is satirize religion.

when they allow denial of the holocaust then we will continue this argument

both of you should understand the need of respecting other religions for harmonious living. India was built on that principle and it has been successful on that principle.
And i apologize if others have been insensitive regarding Hinduism they do not know their religion.

the Prophet stated: “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

In the abstract, the freedom of speech is absolute and should be unrestrained, but in reality, expression of support for Nazism when that odious ideology is still around is the equivalent of yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and all supports laws restraining the freedom of speech in those extremely unique circumstances.

typical useless arguments. Read on the veggie libel laws. Read on hate speech. Read on banning Iranian Tv networks in US. Read the article that started on this post. Then come back i will come back later i am leaving for now.

 

[Bang Galore]

if you protested they would have been deleted and that is respecting others.

As I said, you haven't been around for long........

 

[Maxtini]

when they allow denial of the holocaust then we will continue this argument

both of you should understand the need of respecting other religions for harmonious living. India was built on that principle and it has been successful on that principle.
And i apologize if others have been insensitive regarding Hinduism they do not know their religion.

the Prophet stated: “Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

They don't allow holocaust denial because they're the ones comitted or participated in the holocaust. It only applies to them not you, and you're free to deny holocaust don;t you? It's freedom of speech! There is no farce here.

Similarly muslims don't allow criticising or satirizing their religion because their religion forbid so, but it only applies to muslims only, not the west. The west is free to satirize religion as part of their freedom of speech.

 

[Gufi]

As I said, you haven't been around for long........

there are idiots everywhere. I have stayed out of Pakistan for a long time, managed to keep friends with many Hindus on the belief of mutual respect. From those who were pure vegetarians whom I ate only veg with to those who ate everything together we all got along with respect and never insulted each other. Some treated me with kindness and called me little brother and even though i will always have religious differences i will always respect them.
When you consider someone human you do not insult them in any way. Even your religion teaches you that do not hurt others feelings. Freedom is a good concept but there are values and respect also. I will never kill anyone for what they say but i will never respect him either or consider him worth calling a human because the difference in my eyes is humans understand feelings and do not hurt others in any way.

Similarly muslims don't allow criticising or satirizing their religion because their religion forbid so, but it only applies to muslims only, not the west. The west is free to satirize religion as part of their freedom of speech.

muslims brought the bill in UN that said NO religion in any form should be insulted. It is not only Islam we believe no one should insult what other believe in.

 

[Bang Galore]

there are idiots everywhere. I have stayed out of Pakistan for a long time, managed to keep friends with many Hindus on the belief of mutual respect. From those who were pure vegetarians whom I ate only veg with to those who ate everything together we all got along with respect and never insulted each other. Some treated me with kindness and called me little brother and even though i will always have religious differences i will always respect them.
When you consider someone human you do not insult them in any way. Even your religion teaches you that do not hurt others feelings. Freedom is a good concept but there are values and respect also. I will never kill anyone for what they say but i will never respect him either or consider him worth calling a human because the difference in my eyes is humans understand feelings and do not hurt others in any way..

That is what a reasonable person should do but the argument here is different - what would you do when you don't agree? Murder? Or do you shrug your shoulders & move on?