Hxstory

[BvBPL]

So the answer to censorship is mandatory speech.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Perhaps, just as we have a right to free speech, we should have a right to shut the hell up, what do you think?

 

[BvBPL]

But the Funky-Ryika alternative non-censorship plan to combat terrorism relies on making sure ten thousand newspapers print the same thing.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Is it attempting to fight them by boring them to death?

 

[BvBPL]

If that is the case then expect a draft of poetry slammers.

 

[Ryika]

So the answer to censorship is mandatory speech.

Neither he nor I said that it should be "mandatory" to write about or show something.

I was merely pointing out that this is how the survival of free speech can be ensured - by making it easy to stand in for it. If there's nobody around to say something that is correct but may have consequences it would be a difficult step for each individual person to come forward, and a hard but important truth may not be spoken. That's simply how intimidation works.

Not that I'm saying that not showing the cartoons means the end of free speech, but it does show an attitude that, if kept when more important battles arise, may seriously hurt our ability to secure free speech.

 

[BvBPL]

Free speech is not ensured by mandating speech.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Is it attempting to fight them by boring them to death?

Maybe. It might be arguable that the constant and widespread violation of a religious sin can wear it down to the point that even extreme adherents won't care about it anymore.

 

[Funky]

Free speech is not ensured by mandating speech.

You can either respond to the arguments I rather extensively laid out earlier in the thread and engage in an honest discussion, or you can continue to misrepresent what I (and Ryika) have said and toss out silly one-sentence posts, like many other posters have been doing. We have free speech, afterall! Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[useless]

Technically, there is no such thing as free speech on internet forums, as what can and cannot be said is dictated by the owner + mods.

 

[BvBPL]

You're accusing me of being frivolous about a cartoon.

But to take the issue seriously, free speech is not having ten thousand newspapers say the same thing, but to ensure ten thousand newspapers each are able to say something different. Demanding that there should be a unitary message defeats that goal.

Ryika has suggested presenting that unitary message is a means to defend free speech. I've got a better way. Instead, let us simply not place limits upon speech as some have suggested.

A few examples:

"I think Jews should be killed."
-> Should not be covered by free Speech.

"Jews should be killed!"
-> Should not covered be by free Speech.

 

[Borachio]

This is exactly why the cartoons had to be shown by the media throughout the free world. To spread the risk. As I mentioned before, a local newspaper in Germany got bombed for showing the cartoons. The cartoon contest in Garland Texas was attacked because people drew pictures. Drawing the picture of a certain person has become a life-threatening endeavour. The only way to combat this madness and to restore free speech is to spread the risk and publish pictures like this everywhere. The jihadists can attack single events or news outlets, but they can't attack everyone. Only this way can we make it clear that free speech is not negotiable.

One should add that this is not just about drawing Muhammed. It is about Islamic blasphemy laws in general, which we are willingly allowing to be imposed upon us. Criticising Islam in any fashion has become a very dangerous thing to do. People like Sam Harris, Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Hamed Abdel Samad, Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders and others have to live a life under police protection or have had to employ bodyguards for what they have said about Islam. Not to mention people like Raif Badawi or other free-thinkers in the Muslim world who are greatly risking their lives just for asking questions, many of whom have been brutally murdered. To fight this medieval barbarism it is essential that we speak out and spread the risk, not least to support the victims of Islamic orthodoxy, the women, the gays, the atheists and free-thinkers. These people take huge risks if they speak out in their home countries; there is simply no excuse not to speak out in our Western countries, where we have the freedom to do so and where the risk is trivially small in comparison. If we don't speak out here, in our relative safety, we will abandon those who depend on our support, confirm the orthodox status quo, and impede on any attempts to make progress.

There is much in what you say.

And it's interesting that Western media have so "backed off" from anything critical of Islam. I'm at a loss to explain it really.

However, many Muslims do take their religion very seriously indeed. So much so that they see it as part and parcel of themselves (or even vice versa: they are part of Islam). So is it any surprise that many of them are prepared to die in - what they see as - the defence of it?

And on the other hand, we have a publication like Charlie Hebdo which specializes (or specialized - I don't even know whether the thing is still going) in publishing scurrilous cartoons with a blatant disregard for the feelings of even the most liberal Muslim.

I think it maybe all too easy to expect modern day Muslims to be like secular Christians (other religions are available), who, it has to be said pay mere lip-service to their religion, in the main.

Now, that may well be the way forward for humanity in the long term (even though it seems to encourage double-think, maybe the burden of serious "religion" is just too high). But I don't see it helping in the face of present-day Islam.

 

[gay_Aleks]

What would that accomplish, exactly? Hoo-boy, you published a cartoon of Mohammed! That's so brave!

Now, I do wonder whether the terrorists would have seen it and thought "Achmed! Back out, the decadent Western civilization isn't so decadent! We'd better stick to bombing innocent Syrians."

In case you wondered, no they wouldn't.

 

[BvBPL]

No suicide bomber wants to be portrayed with cross-hatching.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Well, you know what they say - beggars can't be choosers.

Especially when they've strapped explosives to their chests.

Even moreso, if they're dying for 72 virgins or what-ever.

 

[Cheetah]

You're accusing me of being frivolous about a cartoon.

But to take the issue seriously, free speech is not having ten thousand newspapers say the same thing, but to ensure ten thousand newspapers each are able to say something different. Demanding that there should be a unitary message defeats that goal.

Ryika has suggested presenting that unitary message is a means to defend free speech. I've got a better way. Instead, let us simply not place limits upon speech as some have suggested.

Where are you getting this "mandatory" and "plan" from? It's almost as if you're purposefully misrepresenting what's being said.

It's a suggestion that if everyone did it, it wouldn't be special if someone did it, and thus no individual newspaper would be threatened. Which is a rather reasonable argument.

But no one is arguing that all newspapers should have been forced to do anything, just that it could have been a good thing if it had happened.

 

[BvBPL]

It's a suggestion that if everyone did it, it wouldn't be special if someone did it, and thus no individual newspaper would be threatened. Which is a rather reasonable argument.

That's utterly daft. Assuming that publication would make a paper a target, publication by ten thousand newspapers would create ten thousand targets. If the goal is safety, as you suggest, then that is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Cheetah]

Not if we consider the action causing the targeting to be worthwhile.

Then the question becomes how to promote, or at least make the action permissible, and then it can be argued that there is safety in numbers.

 

[BvBPL]

Then the question becomes how to promote...

You mean like a plan?

...it can be argued that there is safety in numbers.

No, it cannot. If the Post, Times, and Daily News all publish a cartoon that makes the papers targets then none of them are safe. The number of potential targets increases three-fold.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah and the likelihood that each of them is attacked by a group that wants to attack a newspaper is divided by 3.

Not sure what's so hard to understand about that.