[castor]

Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.

[Dilmah G]

Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.

QFT

Good post 

Recommend you sig it.

[vyper]

Do you people read history books or do you just skim the summary on the back page?

[NGTM-1R]

Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE (and quite often the one who conducted the "speech" is nowhere close to be seen). It appears like "freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself. Because no-one lives, eats or breathes free speech. "Free speech" as itself is just a cause, separated from the effect its nothing of a value.

I am stunned by the inadequacy of your reasoning. The second sentence alone demonstrates two misapprehensions regarding the nature of reality. The third and fourth are breathtakingly inane and demonstrate a criminal lack of understanding of both history and how society functions. The fifth is complete non sequitor. The sixth is both a patently ridiculous straw man that can be turned upon you or any other subject with such ridiculous ease I'm not even going to bother, and undermining your posistion that it is dangerous from the second sentence. Creating a fallacy that doubly damages your argument is an impressive feat.

And your first sentence is not even a sentence, and also a demonstration you don't know how to create an ellipses.

[Dilmah G]

Now I read that post again, I disagree with

"freedom of speech" is though to have great value by itself? I think it has has NO value by itself

Freedom of speech has contributed to many great things, however this also stands out

Freedom of speech.. Yeah, a great IDEAL, but its careless use tends to lead to great amounts of suffering in PRACTICE

Carelessly used I agree with, but as an ideal? I don't think so.

[Flipside]

Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death. The tragic part is that the Tabloids would pay more attention to what the 3%ers said, claiming it 'proved the case', rather than paying any attention to the other 94%.

From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.

[IPAndrews]

Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death.

I challenge you to raise that poll here on HLP and back up those numbers.

[Flipside]

This board isn't the UK, and it's an approximation, not a statement of exact fact.

[IPAndrews]

Well I for one would like to see what the average HLP user's opinion is on this. Somebody set us up the vote.

[castor]

The sixth is both a patently ridiculous straw man that can be turned upon you or any other subject with such ridiculous ease I'm not even going to bother, and undermining your posistion that it is dangerous from the second sentence.

Ok, let me put it in another words, maybe you'll get the point:
By all means, feel free to speak, but if due to this freedom someones neck is to be cut, let it be your own. Thanks.

[dr_costas]

hey guys I found this (on wikipedia so it must be correct  )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

in summary, it is a criminal offense to express racial hate. But it goes on to say that "In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behavior, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting"

So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.

I can see a bright future where you will be prosecuted for any kind of hate.

"You will be imprisoned because you told Mr Smith that you "hate his green garden chairs". According to Article 208349 Par 34322 line 343 you are in violation of the freedom of expression of Mr Smith and your comments fall under the "Hate speech" discrimination act which is a criminal offense. Your comments have the potential to incite other neighbors to dislike Mr Smiths green garden chairs with catastrophic results to the community spirit of the town."

yeap. lovely...

[Kosh]

So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.

Ironic given that the people he was targeting are guilty of hate speech themselves.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Look at it this way, if he came over and said 'Islam is a blood-thirsty, hate-filled religion', 94% of people would just ignore him and think he was a twat, 3% would agree, and 3% would call for his death. The tragic part is that the Tabloids would pay more attention to what the 3%ers said, claiming it 'proved the case', rather than paying any attention to the other 94%.

From my perspective, the danger isn't really what he thinks, it's how it would be reported.

heh, if anything it seems that you'd be sorely wrong on those numbers.
The percentage of people in Europe that agree that islam is a threat to our way of lafe and values is pretty high, and raising.

as for being anti-islam? what's wrong with it anyways? It's no different than being anti-christianity or anti-communist or so. It's certainly not racism (unlike the anti-sri-lankan example given) as there are muslims (christians, communits, etc) of many different races.
Muslims (and other religionists) will just have to learn to accept that their believes will be mocked/critised/persiflages/etc by others. Being able to criticise and mock religion is one of the historical and essential fundaments that make up the right of free speech. Enough people were killed or imprisoned to give us that right, and we'd be damned if let some intolerant twats take it away.
In other words: it's not because muslims venerate (spilling over into worship almost) muhammed that others should, or that he's even worthy of respect.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

hey guys I found this (on wikipedia so it must be correct  )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

in summary, it is a criminal offense to express racial hate. But it goes on to say that "In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behavior, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting"

So, was the UK gov right to sent this guy back or not? I haven`t seen his film so I cannot tell. If it incites people against Islam then yes, If he just states his opinion then I guess no.

His fitna-film is basically a sequence of facts: terror-attacks or hate-speeches made by muslim clerics backed up by suras from the Quran (overlaid on the image), this to show that the actions takes and the speeches given are backed up by the 'holy' book.
And given the reality of todays world: islam incites others against it just fine on its own. Personally I don't like to be called a (decendent of) dog or monkey.

[karajorma]

Well the monkey one is nearly correct, like it or not.

I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too. I get very suspicious when someone calls for the banning of the Koran because it is violent and yet says nothing at all about the Bible.

[Kosh]

I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.

True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.

[iamzack]

I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.

True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.

Christians in the US don't mind bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors to, uh, save lives.

Or beating teenage boys to death on the *suspicion* that they are gay...

Et cetera. :\

[Dilmah G]

I'm perfectly fine with calling for banning Islam but why just Islam? There are plenty of other radicals in other religions too.

True but I don't think they bombed the underground or flew airplanes into buildings lately. You're right though, we shouldn't just stop at islam.

Christians in the US don't mind bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors to, uh, save lives.

Or beating teenage boys to death on the *suspicion* that they are gay...

Et cetera. :\

Every side has its warts, the media goes with what works so Islam is on the receiving end of most of this regardless.

[dr_costas]

people say the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, but what they actually mean is my grass is greener than yours so burn in hell 

especially since some western ppl think that their way of life is the true way of living, democracy is the best, freedom of speech, expression, etc etc

but who actually knows what is best? do you measure people's happiness? financial power? corruption? level of education?

Saddam's regime made many people unhappy in later years but at the same time he improved the general quality of life of his country, built schools, established free education etc etc. Look at the state of Iraq now.

It is very easy to speak about others and their deficiencies because it is so difficult to look at one's self. That  is why we have freespace, we can blame it all on shivans and the GTI, and if you are GTI you blame the vesudans 

[karajorma]

It's also worth pointing out that the reason that Islam has turned on the West is due to years of meddling in the Middle East by the West. Often helping to depose democratically elected governments. The result has usually been that the Western puppet gets kicked out 4-5 years later and everyone in that country hates the West for forcing them to have to go through a revolution.

I very much doubt the West would be any better in the same place. The Oklahoma City bombing should be very good proof of what happens when you let nutcases get the feeling that someone is repressing them.