Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Given Europe's role and enslavement of Africans, torture and murders of millions of Africans for decades in the name of the slave trade, maybe then, they should have made Africans or Black people a protected class and made the denial of slavery a crime punishable by law? After all, slavery has been recognized as a crime against humanity

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.

Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.

Je parle comme je veux, quand je veux. Passes ton chemin si tu n'as rien d'autre a apporter a la discussion !

Anonymous wrote:I think it's "tout de suite." Speak American, nobody cares how refined you want to seem.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

It seems to be hard for you to understand that, post-Holocaust, Jews are a protected class in Europe. Luckily, you're here in America, where you can mock whoever you wish. Have at it.

Muslima wrote:

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Because as we all know, one cartoon depicting Elie Weasel or Anne Frank or Golda Meir in any 'off flavor' way, much less via outright obscenities, would mean termination, toute suite! Right? Like Mr. Sinet, the one Hebdo man who was terminated for merely suggesting Sarko's son was marrying Jewish to 'move on up.' Not a genital in sight. Nor a 'bad word.' Just a hint..So much for the phony baloney "nothing is sacred"

Because as we all know, (or should by now), all barnyard animals, people and religions are equal, but some are a whole lot more equal than others. wink wink

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima 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.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.

You JUST basically said you do not believe freedom of speech should cover those things that you find offensive. That is a slippery slope toward complete censorship and a total lack of freedom. Do the logic. Think about it. Freedom of speech means that you, nor anyone else, has the right to NOT be offended. Believe or feel what you want about it; it is what I is. I didn't throw a shit fit as a Catholic when "Piss Christ" came out. My beliefs and my god are bigger than that, and it rolls off my back. Political and personal speech is not and should not be regulated, period.

No, you said that! I said that even though I do not agree or condone insults and mockery of faith, I do not support Vigilante murders. Why is this British reporter being asked to resign? Where is his freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html This whole situation in Paris is so filled with contradictions and intellectual hypocrisy. When the West goes around killing Muslims day and night in the name of democracy, and hundreds of millions living as refugees and suffering day and night, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here.And when the West arrests and imprisons Muslims that they perceive as a threat, without any evidence and send them to Guantanamo, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. And when the West funds and protects the worst tyrants in the world, tyrants who starve, imprison, and torture their people, and the West praises them as allies and funds them with billions of dollars, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. But hey, let a few Muslims go berserk and commit a terrorist act, and here we are in the millions marching for our freedom! Ahh, like the other was saying, It's so difficult to have conversations with people who can't realize that while you're forced to mourn their tragedies, they've never had to mourn yours!

Spot on!

The rampant hypocrisy and double standards is breathtaking!

A dozen people in France are killed by terrorists and it brings out millions in protest. Boko Haram massacres over 100 times that number and it barely evokes a response by those who are incensed by what happened in Paris.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/boko-haram-attacks-france-can-help-itself-but-nigeria-needs-support-20150113-12n3ro.html

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima 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.

Is there a national security or commercial interest inherent in curbing offensive speech? Who decides what is offensive? If we rule by law that no one be allowed to say anything that offends anyone else, then no one will be allowed to say anything. That is the ABSOLUTE antithesis of freedom. Is that what you want? It is not what Americans want. I loathe Westboro Baptist Church with the heat of a thousand suns, but I will defend their right to say what they want. The same laws that protect them protect those who mobilize to speak against them and physically block out their hate at the funerals they picket. It's called a war of ideas for a reason. You don't fight words with guns, and the solution is not to muzzle the population en masse. I assume you are enjoying your freedom to speak your mind on this forum. Why would you deny that to someone else? Are your beliefs so fragile that they can be harmed by words? Mine are not.

Where did I say that I was against freedom of Speech? I stated that regardless of what has been said since the Paris attack, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are many times when states choose security over freedom. On the Charlie Hebdo controversy, I will refer you to what Omar Suleiman said. I am not Charlie Hebdo, nor am I a terrorist.On one hand, I have never insulted anyones religion, prophet, or holy book nor do I approve of others doing so. I do not believe free speech should be used as a cover to insult the most beloved human being to me that's ever lived or any prophet or holy figure. I do not approve of the vile racist cartoons drawn by Charlie Hedbo or any magazine . And if that means I'm not a "moderate Muslim" according to the bigot Bill Maher, then so be it. On the other hand, I believe in principle and value life. I do not sanction vigilantes murdering people indiscriminately. I believe in responding to these evil insults against my Prophet (peace be upon him) with education and mercy. I have seen Arnoud Van Doorn change his life and say "I am sorry oh Prophet of God" and that is far more beloved to me than if someone would've murdered him 2 years ago. I am not Charlie, nor am I a terrorist. I am a follower of the man who was sent as a mercy to the worlds.

You JUST basically said you do not believe freedom of speech should cover those things that you find offensive. That is a slippery slope toward complete censorship and a total lack of freedom. Do the logic. Think about it. Freedom of speech means that you, nor anyone else, has the right to NOT be offended. Believe or feel what you want about it; it is what I is. I didn't throw a shit fit as a Catholic when "Piss Christ" came out. My beliefs and my god are bigger than that, and it rolls off my back. Political and personal speech is not and should not be regulated, period.

No, you said that! I said that even though I do not agree or condone insults and mockery of faith, I do not support Vigilante murders. Why is this British reporter being asked to resign? Where is his freedom of speech? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906539/Calls-BBC-reporter-resign-told-daughter-Holocaust-survivors-Paris-Palestinians-suffer-hugely-Jewish-hands-well.html This whole situation in Paris is so filled with contradictions and intellectual hypocrisy. When the West goes around killing Muslims day and night in the name of democracy, and hundreds of millions living as refugees and suffering day and night, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here.And when the West arrests and imprisons Muslims that they perceive as a threat, without any evidence and send them to Guantanamo, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. And when the West funds and protects the worst tyrants in the world, tyrants who starve, imprison, and torture their people, and the West praises them as allies and funds them with billions of dollars, that is fine and acceptable. No uproar here. But hey, let a few Muslims go berserk and commit a terrorist act, and here we are in the millions marching for our freedom! Ahh, like the other was saying, It's so difficult to have conversations with people who can't realize that while you're forced to mourn their tragedies, they've never had to mourn yours!