satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Charlie Hebdo cartoon of Muhammad with a fused bomb in his turban DOES represents hate speech by representing his followers as war-waging bomb-blowing monsters. Don't pretend that it had a rosy message.

I dont see this as hate speech. Sorry.
To me, its connecting an interpretation of Islam to terrorism. Which happens everyday.

See...and that is part of the disconnect. I am Christian and I would say that cartoon is hate speech. It offended (and was meant to offend) the people it portrayed but it also offended Muslims who are NOT terroritsts. It was meant to generalize the entire group as terrorists and it is NO different than a cartoon (or someone saying) that all Jews are crooks. If one is wrong, then the other is just as wrong. I get the sense that some of you are taking this position because of a prejudice against Muslims.

Truth is an affirmative defense to defamation. Does that work for the charge of hate speech as well?

What are you saying is true? That ALL followers of Islam are terrorists or that all Jews are crooks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Piss Christ is a much older art work than Barack Obama. People have been mocking Christians for decades, I mean centuries. I should know--I am a Christian. And Christ would say turn the other cheek. Please do not confuse the barbarity of the medieval church structure with the message of Christ: redemption and love. This is a tenet in many faiths, and a sustaining one.

be honest. if you had to choose between 1) publicly burning the US flag or expose your "piss Christ" work of art on , or 2) publish a "piss Mohamed" cartoon or publicly expose a "piss Mohamed" statue, which one would you choose?

be honest and don't say neither because I respect everybody and so on. (hint: you would likely choose the first because be "attacked" by Jesse Helms is preferable than be attacked by an AK-47)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

Uh, the Republican party has apparently not "gotten over" flag burning. The fact that Democrats are there to prevent them from blocking this speech says nothing about their behavior.

And in case you are unfamiliar, they are trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

Uh, the Republican party has apparently not "gotten over" flag burning. The fact that Democrats are there to prevent them from blocking this speech says nothing about their behavior.

And in case you are unfamiliar, they are trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law.

please cite how many people in the US have been murdered in the past 10 years by enraged conservatives because they burned the flag

[Muslima]

Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

Uh, the Republican party has apparently not "gotten over" flag burning. The fact that Democrats are there to prevent them from blocking this speech says nothing about their behavior.

And in case you are unfamiliar, they are trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law.

please cite how many people in the US have been murdered in the past 10 years by enraged conservatives because they burned the flag

how many American Muslims killed in the last ten years over a cartoon of Mohammed?

Goody no one murdered anyone.

Is it ok if someone builds a mosque in lower Manhattan now, or is that still "hallowed ground"?

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:Pope Francis, a human Pope who understands people's realities and psyches quite well.

Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

The pontiff said that both freedom of faith and freedom of speech were fundamental human rights and that "every religion has its dignity."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-magazine-attack/pope-francis-freedom-speech-one-cannot-make-fun-faith-n286631

Indeed, the Catholic church has sued CH many times over the years. Although I am surprised by Pope Francis's words. What about turning the other cheek?

The men who murdered all of the cartoonists were not Catholic. Did you forget?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

Uh, the Republican party has apparently not "gotten over" flag burning. The fact that Democrats are there to prevent them from blocking this speech says nothing about their behavior.

And in case you are unfamiliar, they are trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law.

Again, what is your point? That a faction has tried to limit free speech here and failed? Yes, that's right. So? I never said that the R's have gotten over it. Who cares? They've failed at it time and time again. You can make your argument if/when it's successful. They're not going to get a Constitutional Amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This week's coverror of CH, coming out on Wednesday. Mohammed says "everything is forgiven."

I like it.

This cover is no worse or better than the American sculpture "Piss Christ." It is the same as burning or desecrating the American flag.

THESE ARE PROTECTED FORMS OF FREE SPEACH.

And burning a Koran is likewise protected. You are free to disagree -WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF OUR LAWS. Get over it or get going.

Gee, wasn't there a conservative uproar over "piss Christ"? I believe the artist was attacked by Jesse Helms, received death threats, and vandals tried to destroy his work. I believe it was actually broken by vandals abroad at one point, and conservatives demanded that Barack Obama denounce the exhibit. It hardly seems like conservatives "got over" that.

And I believe that conservatives frequently put up Flag Burning amendments in Congress. So much for free speech on that one.

Huh? Flag burning is legal. People propose all kinds of nutty laws, but it didn't pass.
You keep conflating people speaking out about things they find offensive with people killing because they're offended. Pretty dishonest.

Flag burning is legal because enough democrats block these laws from being passed. I believe it failed in the Senate as recently as 2006.

Right, so the legislative process worked in a democracy. What's your point? And even if it had passed, there would've been a constitutional challenge and it would've been overturned.

Uh, the Republican party has apparently not "gotten over" flag burning. The fact that Democrats are there to prevent them from blocking this speech says nothing about their behavior.

And in case you are unfamiliar, they are trying to pass a Constitutional Amendment, not just a law.

please cite how many people in the US have been murdered in the past 10 years by enraged conservatives because they burned the flag

how many American Muslims killed in the last ten years over a cartoon of Mohammed?

Goody no one murdered anyone.

Is it ok if someone builds a mosque in lower Manhattan now, or is that still "hallowed ground"?

You're completely incoherent. If you think you've made some point, you really, really haven't.

[Anonymous]

Your lack of comprehension is not my problem. I still remember when the first amendment meant nothing to the right.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Saying derogatory things about a person or group will never fall into the categories you posted above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Saying derogatory things about a person or group will never fall into the categories you posted above.

Isn't slander a derogatory thing about a person or group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:Free speech is not absolute!

Says who? You?

Freedom of speech is not absolute. The mere fact that there are slander and libel laws is a testament to this. The press is not free to publish the plans for a nuclear bomb. Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Wikileaks ring a bell? The US government has been allowed to limit speech for many, many reasons, because the Supreme Court has recognised that in some cases the harm speech causes can outweigh its value for freedom of speech purposes.

Saying derogatory things about a person or group will never fall into the categories you posted above.

Isn't slander a derogatory thing about a person or group?

Omg you are amazingly stupid