Freedom of speech?

Show all answers

WittyWeaselâ„¢

Both Ahmedinijad's speech and the Danish cartoons are "freedom of speech" . . . but then Ahmedinijad's speech was essentially a denial of established facts and blatant contradictions of earlier remarks he had made publically, while the Danish publication of the Mohammad cartoons was a protest against religious censorship by Mohammedans on the Western media.

While the Mohammedans protested violently against the "insult" of the cartoons, they regularly publish far more derogatory and demonizing characatures of Jews and Christians in the Arabic press. And, to my knowledge, NO Mohammedan has been killed by Jews or Christians or sentenced to a "fatwa" of death for these characterizations.

To see the kinds of cartoons published by the Mohammedan media, you might want to check out www.memri.org (click: "Subjects", then "Anti-Semitism Documentation Project", then "Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 368) as well as www.memritv.org.

//http://www.memri.org
//http://www.memritv.org
//http://islam-the-monster-unchained.blogspot.com

Rillifane

Freedom of Speech is the right of any individual to say whatever they wish about any substantive matter free of restraint by the government.

It has nothing whatever to do with whether other individuals wish to listen nor is it a right to be free of criticism, public opprobrium, boycott or any peaceful, non-violent, demonstration of disagreement. Permitting others to speak freely, even when we strongly disagree, is not a sign that we accept what is said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad ought to be free to voice his beliefs concerning the Holocaust and the Danish cartoonists ought to be free to publish their work free of any government constraint and without becoming the targets of violence.

And you and I ought to be free to agree or disagree about either and to voice that agreement or disagreement in any peaceful, non-violent way we choose.

As to Ahmadinejad specifically, I think it a very good thing that he be allowed to speak at Columbia and be subject to the questioning of students in a free country. By doing so we further expose him as the mendacious, bigoted monster he is.

The answer to evil, foolhardly, or ignorant speech is not less speech but more speech; not less freedom but more freedom.

Freedom shines a light on evil and ignorance that they cannot endure which is exactly why evil and ignorance always seek to limit and surpress free speech.

EDIT: Reading the responses that follow is one of the most demoralizing and disappointing things I have done recently.

Please note the last sentance of my response above.

What does it say about this group when so many stand ready to limit or surpress the speech of others?

Can none of you see that once you decide that you can limit speech by pasting a label on it that is defined by you that there is NO LIMIT on what can be surpressed?

In the United States they once banned James Joyce's writing as "pornography" and decreed that others could not speak because they were "Un-American". In New York State, five duly elected socialists were expelled from the State Assembly because their speechs were labeled "subversive." Labeling something as "hate speech" and then using that as an excuse to ban it makes you no better than the people who banned James Joyce.

If someone says something which you find offensive then ENGAGE them in debate. What are you afraid of? If they are as wrong as you think they are then their errors will soon be exposed.

Ahmadinejad was lampooned and mocked on every talk and comedy show on American television last night. The falsehoods of his speech at Columbia were exposed. His claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran is one more ludicrous assertion that can be added to the many he had already made. Whatever small credibility he might have had in the Western world has been diminished even further by allowing him to speak.

I repeat, let the lunatics, the haters, the liars, the deluded and even the plainly evil speak and then speak out yourself.

Stand up and make plain your devotion to freedom, truth, tolerance, and dialogue by your words AND by your deeds.

That is the way to defeat evil.
.

paperback writer

Good question!

We must have freedom of speech. I guess it goes back to the idea that you can hate someone's opinion but you will defend to the death their right to say it.

But what happens when freedom of speech gives certain people and groups a platform to incite racial hatred? If a radical Muslim preaches and calls for the death of Jews and Israelis, then obviously I don't think this should be allowed.

And if an Israeli militant says the same thing about Muslims or Palestinians, I wouldn't accept or condone this either.

So I guess I'm saying that freedom of speech is vital, until and unless it enables someone to encourage violence and hatred.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm sitting on the fence, h!

(And thank you for your kind words about me in a previous post, much appreciated)

Michael J

This is a very good question and basically encompasses the issue of freedoms in general. Freedom of speech is the biggest undefinable in modern democracy. For the most part, the line is drawn at hate-mongering; what exactly is hate-mongering is a matter of political and social opinion however. The Danish felt that a cartoon depicting Mohammed was not hate-mongering even though it offended Muslims. Apparently one is allowed to be offensive as long as one's sentiments are not hate-filled, which the comic was deemed not to be. Denying the holocaust on its own seems benign; however, in those countries that were active participants in the holocaust, denying its veracity is tantamount to enabling it to happen again, and thus in countries like Germany rejecting the holocaust is on par with hate-mongering. Furthermore, denying the holocaust is a matter of fact and not opinion; the holocaust happened, plain and simple. As Mr. Bollinger pointed out, the holocaust is the most documented event in human history - there is no room for doubt. And therefore, those who reject its veracity do so only for alterior motives; if they truelly came from academic objectivity there would be but one conclusion to reach. For this reason, Ahmadinejad's comments do not fall under the protection of freedom of speech. His holocaust denials are but one facet of his philosophy of belittling Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state, which is certainly unacceptable.
Going back to the Danish cartoons, if I understand correctly the issue was the depiction of Mohammed at all and not the implication that Islam is a terrorist religion. I can see why this is clearly offensive to Muslims - it is violating their religious beliefs with their own religious character. However, it is not considered illegal to depict Jesus doing lewd and unchristian things - it is done all the time. Therefore I must conclude that the cartoons, while in bad taste, were not illegal and are protected under freedom of speech.

united9198

I think "freedom of speech" allows you to say any knuckle-headed and factually incorrect thing you want to. If you want to say, "I hate Jews", you should be allowed to say that.

That does not mean however that you should be given a forum at a prestigious university to shoot your mouth off. Ahmadinejad can say anything he wants from Iran. To allow him the right to come to U.S. soil and insult us is another matter. The world would be better if men like him were no longer around, but as long as they are, it might be helpful to let him say anything he wants.....but not in the U.S.A.

Summer Breeze

There should be freedom of speech
But NOT freedom to offend...

**The cartoons of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) were offensive.

**The holocaust cartoons were offensive too.

BOTH WERE WRONG.In a free country we should not be banning things, but we also have responsibility not to stir up hatred.

Ultranational

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Even freedom. I think this is why we were attacked on 9/11. We gave too much freedom to immigrants and foreigners. The ayrabs attacked cause they had free reign. Similarly todays muslims in the USA are collecting money for al quida and hamas and we are not cracking down on them, give em curfews and sh*t.

Aussie

No comparison ...in one case it was a complete overreaction to those stupid cartoons which , if no comment had been made , would never have reached the world press !

What amazes me is that on one hand some Muslim countries find it NECESSARY to ban Christians freedom of speech yet on the other claim victim status when in fact the west give them total freedom to practice their faith with NO restrictions....what are they afraid of ? That people might see the hypocrasy in this !

In the case of the mass executions of minorities during Hitler's mad reign , although disputed as regards the numbers , it is a matter of history !

to know what to say, when to say it, and if your the only one standing in a crowd

Feelin Randi?

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

--Thomas Jefferson.

I find freedom of speech to be full-encompassing. People should be able to say, write, or draw whatever they so choose even if it is a lie, wrong, immoral, etc. I also believe with such a "right" comes a responsibility for what one says. Though you may have the right to say whatever you'd like, you should be held accountable say if you could foresee it causing a riot and it in fact does.

Urooj

Freedom of Speech is to express your opinion and to respect others' opinion. It is related with tolerance and democracy in a society.
So if one is hitting below the belt, it is not freedom of speech but mockery and insanity. We can judge both Ahmadienejad and Danish cartoons on this principal, and both would not be justified.

z k

Ahmadiejad = Hitler.

I sense some kind of rotten smell coming from your question, but I cannot understand what it is.
You pretty much don't like Jews, right?

Al Mac Wheel

Freedom of Speech is the right of an individual or news media to say anything they please, irrespective of whether it has any truth, is pornographic, offensive to other people.

There are laws in various nations, and religious organizations that will try to "get you" if your speech is very offensive to them..

Also, you can be subjected to a law suit, if you say something libelous, slanderous, defamation of character against another person who takes offense and tries to sue you.

In some nations, advertising is called commercial speech ... if someon adevertises a product can do something, or will be sold at some price, and this advertising can be shown to be false, there can be fines for the falsehoods in the commercial speech.

Unfortunately, the Arab press sees nothing wrong with anti-semetic garbage, but will blow a fuse over things like the Danish cartoons ... the anti-semitic stuff habitually published by Arab media is 1000 times worse than the Danish cartoons.

It is like "Politically Correct" has a double standard.

Wolf

Freedom of speech is to say anything about anyone/thing that is on your mind.

It is not limited to subject matter. Where people are confused is when the government (of any nation) decides that a subject, religious, political or other wise is off limits.

Here let me show you an example of free speech.

I think Bush, Chaney and Congress should be arrested for treason and if found guilty executed in front of the Constitution as a sign to the whole world that nothing is above the Constitution. And that includes the bible, Koran or any other text.

puzzledhimal

Those who know little about politics "freedom of speech" meant to them either holding power or dominate to rule citizen. Watch in some other countries in Asia before criticing Iran. Not to forget here enjoying freedom in America by American citizen in cost of other nationality freedom.

In matter of injustice I think in every country, peoples can speak without any fear so there no need of crying for " freedom of speech ". Important to note here that it is useless despite having right of " Freedom of speech", if someone voiced is neglected to listen, because it is sign of selfish society, and I think it is process of death of nationality and nation.

About speech of Iranian President at Columbia University, I watched this program on CNN live; it was 12am midnight Monday in Nepal. Unfortunately I missed at beginning of program, so I tried to read in newspapers, but I did not find any news about his speech till to date newspaper,
Well it is American chips and fish habit, they only show what they like, and when there is live telecast what does it mean to comment during speech. ? Remember America is not a Nation; it is country of moneymaking mind on blood of other nation.

Flamboyant Motives

It is what it says...

What does freedom mean?
What does speech mean?

What is to have freedom?
What is to have speech?

Is freedom limited by mouth or by law?
Is speech limited by law or by mouth?

Dryest Flame

a very good question but if they really believe in freedom of speech so they are first have to believe in freedom in general cause i think even if they believe in so they are not use it the world now have one country rule it by two head master which is wrong in concept but right in them law.
any how insulting religions is a taboo and i think every one insulting Israel is not insulting the religion but insulting the politic issue which i think most of Israel people also don't agree with the politic issue which make people hate the citizen not the politic which mean its wrong.
I'll talk about my self as Muslim Egyptian woman i don't have any thing about the Israeli's citizen or Jewish if we can say it i have a problem with the politics issue that's all and that's the freedom in thinking about that but if i say that i hate Jewish that's the insulting cause Jew is a religion and i cant hate what god say but i hate the Israel politic way and that's my opinion hope i clear my point of view.
all my respect to all Jews and the Israeli's citizen who have brilliant minds to know what is write and what is wrong

TABATHA:don't Israeli's gov. also make a lot of Muslims killed for no reason of we make a small comparison you'll find that the ratio between Muslims and Israelis whom both where Innocent to be killed you'll not believe the Numbers what i mean don't think on one track both are looser its a war so the both side are looser and also the Israel army have ordered to shoot on any one so in a way or another Israel also say KILL MUSLIMS so lets droop that issue and talk without offender lets talk without taking one side from the issue we all here in Y&A try to have a peacful conversation do you all agree with that

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: