satire or hate speech?

[Anonymous]

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

Right, that must be why we outlawed all speech against Christianity in the United States. And we outlawed flagburning. You're right, we don't have free speech in the United States. Or your wacky.

[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

Where was he when people were building Satan and zombie creches all.over America this Xmas? And where were you?

[Anonymous]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgYqCEGjREI

Bill Clinton on Seth Myers last night. Over four minutes, but watch it ALL. Different take from the pope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right, that must be why we outlawed all speech against Christianity in the United States. And we outlawed flagburning. You're right, we don't have free speech in the United States. Or your wacky.

we have free speech because liberals defend it. The first thing the conservatives did after ratifying the constitution was to pass the alien and sedition acts.

48 states outlawed flag burning and the conservatives in congress tried to pass an amendment in one or the other house over a dozen times.

We have free speech, no thanks to you.

[Anonymous]

Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right, that must be why we outlawed all speech against Christianity in the United States. And we outlawed flagburning. You're right, we don't have free speech in the United States. Or your wacky.

we have free speech because liberals defend it. The first thing the conservatives did after ratifying the constitution was to pass the alien and sedition acts.

48 states outlawed flag burning and the conservatives in congress tried to pass an amendment in one or the other house over a dozen times.

We have free speech, no thanks to you.

No thanks to me? I'm not a conservative you ninny. And what great protection of free speech have you accomplished?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I think Muslima's positions have been more consistent than some of her critics.

It is outright hypocritical to defend the right to insult Mohammed on the grounds of free speech and yet have no issue with those who attempt to restrict the right of someone who chooses to offend Jews or challenge the holocaust.

"challenge the [H]olocaust?" Didn't know it was up for debate.

Whether there is merit to the claims by those who deny the holocaust or feel the numbers are exaggerated is neither here nor there. We are talking about free speech and freedom of expression which is what those who defend the cartoons depicting Mohammed say is the essence of the issue.

How does one make this argument and then in the next breath not condemn any laws that restrict the right of those who choose to question the holocaust or in some other way offend Jewish sensibilities?

Here is a historian who was jailed for denying the holocaust:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

At least one of his fiercest critics had the intellectual honesty to defend his right to say what he wished about the holocaust and opposed his imprisionment.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

Denying the holocaust is not an issue of free speech. It is a denial of documented, historical events purely as an offense to the millions of jews and gypsies and many many others who were murdered - and to their families, and the legions of other people who were affected in some related way. There is no editorial, or political, or comic, or satirical, or ironic value to denying the holocaust. It is hatred, plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgYqCEGjREI

Bill Clinton on Seth Myers last night. Over four minutes, but watch it ALL. Different take from the pope.

interesting

[Anonymous]

18:42, there shouldn't be a free speech exception for insanely wrong or hate-filled speech. Precisely because we can prove all the atrocities of the Holocaust, we don't need to ban the wretched people who deny it. Better to know who they are and shun them then force them to be quiet.

Relatedly, the principle is not that there is only freedom of speech for true speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:18:42, there shouldn't be a free speech exception for insanely wrong or hate-filled speech. Precisely because we can prove all the atrocities of the Holocaust, we don't need to ban the wretched people who deny it. Better to know who they are and shun them then force them to be quiet.

Relatedly, the principle is not that there is only freedom of speech for true speech.

We don't ban Holocauast denial in this country. In some European countries, they do, which we can debate or criticize. However, they lived through it firsthand, and if they believe that even to challenge or deny it is so dangerous as to possibly allow it to occur again, that is a fear that we don't have in this country. For something so recent and dangerous as the Holocaust, debate over the best way to assure it will not be repeated is warranted. They have found their way and we have ours, and the issue is not free speech but prevention of genocide. Perhaps their way will evolve over time, perhaps ours will.


I'm not 18:42, but I did post earlier about the exception for negation of crimes against humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Billy Graham blocks muslim call to prayer at Duke.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2015/01/15/duke-reverses-decision-hold-muslim-call-prayer-chapel-bell-tower#.VLhBppY8LCQ

He called for a donor boycott and the school caved.

He hasn't blocked it. They're discussing. No decision made.

The Chronicle reported that they are not doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You mean it's not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:18:42, there shouldn't be a free speech exception for insanely wrong or hate-filled speech. Precisely because we can prove all the atrocities of the Holocaust, we don't need to ban the wretched people who deny it. Better to know who they are and shun them then force them to be quiet.

Relatedly, the principle is not that there is only freedom of speech for true speech.

We don't ban Holocauast denial in this country. In some European countries, they do, which we can debate or criticize. However, they lived through it firsthand, and if they believe that even to challenge or deny it is so dangerous as to possibly allow it to occur again, that is a fear that we don't have in this country. For something so recent and dangerous as the Holocaust, debate over the best way to assure it will not be repeated is warranted. They have found their way and we have ours, and the issue is not free speech but prevention of genocide. Perhaps their way will evolve over time, perhaps ours will.


I'm not 18:42, but I did post earlier about the exception for negation of crimes against humanity.

I know all of that but I disagree with the choice those countries have made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Right, that must be why we outlawed all speech against Christianity in the United States. And we outlawed flagburning. You're right, we don't have free speech in the United States. Or your wacky.

we have free speech because liberals defend it. The first thing the conservatives did after ratifying the constitution was to pass the alien and sedition acts.

48 states outlawed flag burning and the conservatives in congress tried to pass an amendment in one or the other house over a dozen times.

We have free speech, no thanks to you.

No thanks to me? I'm not a conservative you ninny. And what great protection of free speech have you accomplished?

So you just jumped in the middle of an exchange with another poster. Thanks for that.