jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

The prof is free to say whatever he wants to say. But he doesn't have a right to a tenured position. The school was not obligated to hire him.

Right. No argument there. But, given that his offer was withdrawn for nothing other than how he exercised his right to free expression, I would expect all of the new-found free speech absolutists who are claiming free expression is so important to them to be outraged. I am absolutely not surprised that nobody has weighed in here on the professor's side while two posters have sided with the university. We have internalized all kinds of limits on free expression. The OP should be demanding that we all retweet Salaita's tweets. He says his proposed protest "has to be equal opportunity, for all threats to free expression." Losing your job due to tweets is obviously a threat to free expression.

jsteele wrote:

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

Anonymous wrote:This is an interesting idea. What do you think? From another forum (I edited out some crude words):

So here's what we do. On Sunday at 12 noon everyone, everywhere, posts on their Twitter, Facebook, Instagram exactly the kind of free expression the Paris killers did not want to see. Spread the word and use the hashtag #letsblaspheme. Forward this note as wide as you can. Post it everywhere.

We make this a general policy anytime something like this happens. If a Christian lunatic kills an artist for ****ing on the cross, we post millions of pictures and videos of ourselves ****ing on the cross. If anyone kills anyone, anywhere, for saying something or publishing something, we all say and publish exactly that thing on Sunday at noon after the murder.

It has to happen immediately, the Sunday after the event, to make it clear that it's caused by the event. It has to happen *only* in response to murders caused by the exercise of free expression, not to any other kind of provocation. And it has to be equal opportunity, for all threats to free expression.

Pouring fuel on the fire? No, this is the only way to take the oxygen out of the fire. The violent do not get a veto over free expression in a liberal society. Their actions have to lead to exactly what they do not want.

Is it safe for you to take part? Make it safe. Spread the word. If the hashtag starts trending, if newsmedia pick up the story, if the pundits start saying how this is not wise, you know you'll be safe.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

The prof is free to say whatever he wants to say. But he doesn't have a right to a tenured position. The school was not obligated to hire him.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

Anonymous wrote:
Boy, you're really reaching there. How would you know what "almost all of those claiming to be Charlie" feel about other issues? Do you think for instance you're the only person alive who ever criticizes Israel or AIPAC? Pray do tell: where do you get your information then? And how about all the Jews who also speak out against the Israeli occupation?
Your modern-day Saladdin role of the moment is likely blinding you.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

I do not think the people shouting "Je suis Charlie" are hipocrits. I think they are French citizens who feel their liberty and freedom of expression have been attacked; they are saying "we will not be intimidated by these terrorists."

Do you think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved? Were they in any way at fault?

Really? How about Dieudonne? The French comedian who's been banned by the French government for performing his show over and over because his jokes are offensive to jews? Where are the jesuisDieudonne? How about his free speech?

Manuel Valls, the minister of the interior, has sent out an edict to the mayors of all the cities in France where ‘Dieudo’ is planning to appear on tour: ‘Ban him or else.’ In doing so, Valls has the full support of the French president, François Hollande. The whole of the state apparatus is baying for Dieudo’s blood and screaming that Republican values are being held in contempt. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to be of any importance when it comes to Dieudo.
The latest stage of this farce occurred in Nantes yesterday, where Dieudo was due to play the opening night of his tour. A local judge suspended the interdiction order, allowing the show to go ahead. However, Valls made a successful last-minute appeal to France’s highest court, the Council of State, to reinstate the ban. The result was thousands of booing fans left standing outside the concert hall.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-deibert/in-comic-dieudonne-france_b_4604633.html

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

jsteele wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
jsteele wrote:
It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.


I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.


Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast...ts-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.


Boy, you're really reaching there. How would you know what "almost all of those claiming to be Charlie" feel about other issues? Do you think for instance you're the only person alive who ever criticizes Israel or AIPAC? Pray do tell: where do you get your information then? And how about all the Jews who also speak out against the Israeli occupation?
Your modern-day Saladdin role of the moment is likely blinding you.
[Report Post]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.

I do not think the people shouting "Je suis Charlie" are hipocrits. I think they are French citizens who feel their liberty and freedom of expression have been attacked; they are saying "we will not be intimidated by these terrorists."

Do you think the Charlie Hebdo victims got what they deserved? Were they in any way at fault?

Manuel Valls, the minister of the interior, has sent out an edict to the mayors of all the cities in France where ‘Dieudo’ is planning to appear on tour: ‘Ban him or else.’ In doing so, Valls has the full support of the French president, François Hollande. The whole of the state apparatus is baying for Dieudo’s blood and screaming that Republican values are being held in contempt. Freedom of expression is enshrined in the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to be of any importance when it comes to Dieudo.
The latest stage of this farce occurred in Nantes yesterday, where Dieudo was due to play the opening night of his tour. A local judge suspended the interdiction order, allowing the show to go ahead. However, Valls made a successful last-minute appeal to France’s highest court, the Council of State, to reinstate the ban. The result was thousands of booing fans left standing outside the concert hall.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:It's a form of collective punishment. Because one Christian is guilty of something, you publish things insulting to all Christians, etc. Not a winning strategy unless your goal is increased hatred between groups.

I do not see it that way at all. The intent is NOT to punish nor to offend.

Rather, it honors our basic human right to free expression. That right is only free so long as we are not threatened with being killed or harmed as a result of exercising our human rights.

Tolerance is required and is non-negotiable in Europe and the U.S.

You are not required to like blasphemers but you are required to tolerate others' rights and freedoms. That includes the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive.

Your intent doesn't really matter. As a practical matter, publishing offensive material about a religion is likely to offend significant numbers of members of that religion. That is true regardless of your intent. Moreover, members of a group tend to circle the wagons when they feel their group is under attack. So, rather than widening the rift between moderates and extremists, you actually push them closer together.

Here is an example of the limits of free expression in America:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/13/world/middleeast/professors-angry-tweets-on-gaza-cost-him-a-job.html

"The trustees of the University of Illinois voted on Thursday to block the appointment of Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor who had been offered a tenured position last year, following a campaign by pro-Israel students, faculty members and donors who contended that his Twitter comments on the bombardment of Gaza this summer were anti-Semitic."

I don't think his tweets were anti-Semitic. But, let's assume they were. Should we all tweet anti-Semitic tweets in order to, in your words, "the right to speech that someone, somewhere might deem offensive."

The most hypocritical aspect of the entire "je suis Charlie" movement is the fact that almost all of those claiming to be Charlie rationalize limits on free speech every day of their lives.