excellent! no Orwellian p.c. talk about 'sensitivities'


Danish newspapers reprint controversial Prophet Muhammad cartoon


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 13, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denmark's leading newspapers reprinted a cartoon Wednesday that depicts the Prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban.

The papers said they wanted to show their firm commitment to freedom of speech after Tuesday's arrest in western Denmark of three people accused of plotting to kill the man who drew the cartoon.

The drawing by Kurt Westergaard and 11 other cartoons depicting Muhammad enraged Muslims two years ago when they appeared in a range of Western newspapers.

The Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which first published the 12 drawings on September 30, 2005, reprinted Westergaard's cartoon in its paper edition Wednesday. Several other major dailies, including Politiken and Berlingske Tidende, also reprinted the drawing, which shows Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.

"We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper will always defend," said the Copenhagen-based Berlingske Tidende.

Exposure of the free speech regarding all religions is a good thing. I'm curious as to what excuses the apologists on this forum will have when the violence begins. A big hooray for the Danish news paper.

Have you ever noticed what gutless little pukes our college youth are, they will bash Christianity to no end, without fear of retribution, but they haven't the cajones to say one blastfamous thing about islam. I say bash all religions, be an equal opportunity basher, it shows integrity.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

Free speech is a good thing within limits. Nazi propaganda was inciting and encouraged and created an atmosphere of hatred that allowed the Holocaust to happen. I am not willing to sacrifice millions of people so that other people can say what they like about them.

At the least, one should not be permitted to bash a whole peoples with lies. We have slander rules and false arrest rules for individuals, we should have rules about slandering a whole people. It is not as if these generalizations do not effect each of us personally when we identify with a group.

I don't consider the Danish cartoons slander, but reality that can be easily upheld by readings from the Koran and the Hadiths.

You are right about many of our lefty 'college youths', or 'punks', lol. Missing huevos, no integrity in their thinking.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0bU...watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo#
"The courageous over the infidels, make war for Allah and are not afraid... This is the depiction of the army of Allah that will come at Allah's decree, from here or from there, to liberate these lands from the defilement of the Jews, for Allah was angry with them in his book and called them once 'monkeys,' once 'swine,' and once 'donkeys.'" (Palestinian TV, March 30, 2001)

The brownshirts did not allow free speech. When they came into power, it was mostly built on the resentment the average due to Germany's treatment after WWI. There is still a Nazi party in many Western nations, and they are allowed to express themselves freely. They simply are not allowed to stifle other people's free speech.

1) How do you determine if they are lies?

2) At what point are you slandering "a people"? Where is the line drawn? Do I count as an American Indian because 1/16 of my ancestry is American Indian?

Limiting speech gives what they have to say more power. I am not afraid of what they have to say. Why are you?


What if Muslims do? Who gets to decide if it is really slander?


America has the freest speech in the world...so far we have managed to go a long time without a holocaust. Hyperbole much?

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

That's what we have courts for.
When you are telling lies about them, in particular in order to incite people to violence.
I think that anyone who identifies with a people can argue that they are being slandered by ugly propaganda. As for the courts, they usually require 'standing' in order to bring a case. In the U.S I am not sure what portion native American comprises 'standing.' I read a book by Barbara Kingsolver about that and if I recall you might well be considered native with 1/16 th ancestry.
I think that is a generalisation that may well be false. I think anyone who is a member of a minority and has felt the wrath of a crowd would do well to be afraid of the power of language and inciting propaganda

As I said, the courts in a free society, like Denmark.

The Holocaust happened in the lifetime of people in my family. I am sure it seems like ancient history to most people who think history began at their own birth, lol.

Blacks in America were lynched. 'Injuns' were killed. There is prejudice and stereotypes to this day. One cannot simply say, 'oh well -- these are the casualties of free speech'. One can act as a civil society to deal with such things.

'Speech' in a moral society will most likely regulate itself. But if it does not, then I approve of regulating it.

In Europe many countries have laws against Holocaust denial. I for one despise deniers but do not believe it should be made illegal. If however, someone was claiming that Jews were murdering little Christian boys and making matzoh meal out of them, I think that Jews should have recourse to limiting that person's speech in that regard. Because others, if they believed that, might go out and kill Jews in order to 'save' little Christian boys. I have deliberately used this example which has happened in the past in order to show how people can believe some very far-fetched things about others, and act upon those things.

Another example might be what happened at Freddies Clothing Store, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
in radio broadcasts in the month proceeding that event.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0bU...watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo#
"The courageous over the infidels, make war for Allah and are not afraid... This is the depiction of the army of Allah that will come at Allah's decree, from here or from there, to liberate these lands from the defilement of the Jews, for Allah was angry with them in his book and called them once 'monkeys,' once 'swine,' and once 'donkeys.'" (Palestinian TV, March 30, 2001)

Hats off to Denmark.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Oderint dum metuant"
"Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial."
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

You appear to be ok with allowing the Courts to define racial stereotypes. I am not.

Tell me, if a Court declares that it is ok to stereotype Jews as being thieves, will you accept their decision? Do you think this will lead to more or fewer people stereotyping Jews as thieves?

I am unwilling to give the courts that kind of power. Sorry.



What if the courts decide they arent lies? Does that make my "All Jews are thieves" slander legitimate?

That is why you people are so short sighted...you never consider the possibility that your oppressive rules will be used against you. The sword cuts both ways.



Um...so even if I have no Indian ancestry, I can still claim to be slandered by someone making fun of Indians?

Doesn't that mean that anyone can claim to be slandered for anything?

(and by Indian I mean Feather-Indian, not Dot-Indian)



Did it happen in America?


Thought policing wont make the prejudice go away. It will just drive it underground.

Europe is experiencing far more racial strife than the US is right now, despite the fact that the US has far fewer restrictions on free speech. Why is that?



We do deal with them....by confronting them in the arena of public opinion.

Thats how we solved our racial problems. We confronted the racists and debunked the myths their racism was based on. Their power has been steadily decreasing in America every generation because of this.


If it is so obviously absurd, what are they afraid of?

By silencing the people who say things you dont like, you give the impression that there is some truth in what they are saying.



They wont believe it by default. They'd have to have a reason to believe it. By suppressing free speech you are giving them that reason.

__________________
My Political Blog (Last post Feb 14) - My MySpace Page

We were not talking about racial stereotyping. We were talking about inciteful propaganda.

That's why I specifically said the courts in free countries. The courts in free countries have demonstrated that they are generally fair. We have a system of checks and balances. Everyone is entitled to representation. The idea that you are permitted a jury of your peers for example, allows people of color & Jews & Indians to have representation. It allows women to have representation on the jury, and the word of a woman is of equal value to that of man. Unlike, for example, in countries that practice Sharia law, where the law does not apply equally to women, Jews or other dhimmis. We have civil rights and human rights laws in Western countries, and so I am happy to put myself under the jurisdiction of American law. If I were not, I would move.

And in a free country, such as the US, even the court decisions can be appealed.

I thought I already answered that one. Consider this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ich_bin_ein_Berliner -- this is the kind of identification with the slandered that I am talking about. Or this:
In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

This is what I mean by identification with others. It has no legal standing in a courtroom, just in the heart of man.


I suppose this question has a point but it escapes me

I am not talking about policing thought. I don't care what people think, just what they say and print.

I think that the racial strife in Europe has to do mainly to the fact that they opened their borders to people (mainly Muslim) who chose not to assimilate within the broader community, and indeed to actively oppose it.



Again, I was talking of genocide and lynching. One cannot dismiss these things as the casualties of free speech. Acts such as these must have consequences in a court of law. Did you read about Freddie's Clothing Store? If you had read the transcript of the talk a month before you will have read of much incitement, lies and slander against the owner of Freddie's. This incitement caused the death of several people. Wouldn't it have been better to have silenced the free speech that led to these deaths, rather than to merely discuss it later? A number of innocent people would not have been burned to death. Lynchings and genocides may have been avoided if inciteful hateful lies were given a negative consequence rather than a pass.

So you are saying that you believe that that is not obviously absurd? What is your point? Jews have been killed in pogroms because of the false rumour that they killed Christian boys to make matzoh meal. You think they should not be afraid of that, particularly in non-Western countries today? Have you listened to the youtube links under my signature? Would you believe that children are taught things like that child is taught?
I am simply requiring that people be held accountable for their words as well as their actions. When some redneck Americans say horrible things about gays and encourage violence and gay-bashing, and when finally some innocent gay person is hurt or killed because of the inciteful speech of another, that person is beyond caring what impression he or she might make. That person is simply dead, and not worrying about the impression he makes on others.


You don't know what people will or will not believe. People believe lots of things without reason. They believed for years that there were evil women called witches that cast spells on people and so they burned or drowned these people. They believe that adultery is immoral and so they stone these people to death. They believe homosexuality is a perversion and so they execute him. They believe that Jews were controlling the world and were a parasite on the world and so they rounded them up and gassed them. People will believe what they want. If someone doesn't like you for any reason, and makes up bs about you and passes it around-- and there is someone else who dislikes you as well who hears it -- he will doubtless believe it. And when he passes it on to the next guy, the story will make you look even worse than before. The Palestinians do this all the time. They sincerely believe that the Jews are poisoning their wells, giving poison candy to their children, giving their cows mad-cow disease, researching to find medical ways to kill only Arabs...all sorts of bs. They tell each other that and they believe it. Thus they find themselves thoroughly justified when they strap on a bomb to go kill Jews.

One of the casualties of freedom of speech.

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4x0bU...watch_response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo#
"The courageous over the infidels, make war for Allah and are not afraid... This is the depiction of the army of Allah that will come at Allah's decree, from here or from there, to liberate these lands from the defilement of the Jews, for Allah was angry with them in his book and called them once 'monkeys,' once 'swine,' and once 'donkeys.'" (Palestinian TV, March 30, 2001)