It's not a law, but a test the US Supreme Court uses to determine obscene speech, which they say falls outside the purview of free speech (I don't think it does though). Here's a Reason.tv video on a soon-to-be-heard obscenity case. There's more on that site about free speech and limitations in America if you look. Look at the DISCOLSE Act. It's gonna greatly restrict speech if it passes.Well if the one case makes it on TV, I don't think the law is used that often :? It looks like a very vague law to begin with. I also don't think that Discole Act will pass - nothing's going to change anytime soon.fat_rob
"Everyone Draw Holocaust Day" - June 30th ... Discussion ONLY
This topic is locked from further discussion.
No, their art isn't more valuable, it's just that their point in drawing Muhammad has more oomph since there is an entire segment of a religion trying to prevent them from depicting Muhammad and threatened violence against Matt and Trey if they did so. No one is telling people not to draw pictures of the holocaust. Can important points be made by depicting the holocaust? Yes, but the points would be amplified if people where actually against drawing the holocaust. fat_robIt isn't the entire religion, but merely fringe elements that are trying to prevent it. And it isn't like they have any real power to prevent it in the first place. These people have the power, if they so choose, to draw Muhammed. Their drawing Muhammed furthers no particular agenda or goal. It does not protect any particular right more-so than it was before. Such rights are protected by law. However, their actions are also instigating violence and creating civil unrest. They are borderline sociopaths who are engaging in pointless activities with no real value knowing full well they are inciting violence. That is immaturity on the greatest level, far more than chili jokes.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]No, there was probably about as much outcry about their cartoon as there will be from this day. Only this time it will get far less publicity.jimmyjammer69The outcry exists for different reasons though. This outcry is because it's just a blatant attempt to be offensive. The Muhammad day was to a reaction against a prohibition. See the difference? No. There was no prohibition, just outcry. :| You must be unfamiliar with Islamic law. Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. Muslim outcry was based on the prohibition found in Islamic Law (think about it, if the law didn't prohibit the draws, why would Muslims be mad?). The outcry to the holocaust day will be based solely on a feeling of being offended, it will not be rooted in Jewish law. Thee groundings for the outcries are different in kind. One exists because of a prohibition and the other is because of emotions.
[QUOTE="GazaAli"]
who is the genius who came up with this idea? Lets see what is going to happen. According to freedom of speech and the arguments I heard about the Muhammad day, this should be 100% legal which is quiet disgusting if this is how things are. "I may not like it, but I can't stop you", lets see how this argument will hold.
anyway is this just on FB? is so then this topic is so fail.
dkrustyklown
It is legal. If someone wants to make light of the holocaust, then that is his or her right. On the flip side, one could draw images of the holocaust in order to draw attention to its horrors in the hope that such an event never happens again.
Freedom of speech is great. Someone can make a joke out of something while someone else can use it to make a statement.
dont get me wrong, freedom of speech is something amazing to be honest, and here in Gaza, its something I suffer from the lack of it every single day. But still,there must be a sense of morality to it.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The outcry exists for different reasons though. This outcry is because it's just a blatant attempt to be offensive. The Muhammad day was to a reaction against a prohibition. See the difference? fat_robNo. There was no prohibition, just outcry. :| You must be unfamiliar with Islamic law. Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. Muslim outcry was based on the prohibition found in Islamic Law (think about it, if the law didn't prohibit the draws, why would Muslims be mad?). The outcry to the holocaust day will be based solely on a feeling of being offended, it will not be rooted in Jewish law. Thee groundings for the outcries are different in kind. One exists because of a prohibition and the other is because of emotions. Erm... so Muslims chose not to draw Mohammed for religious reasons but the people who did had never been prohibited from doing so. I don't see your point at all.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The outcry exists for different reasons though. This outcry is because it's just a blatant attempt to be offensive. The Muhammad day was to a reaction against a prohibition. See the difference? fat_robNo. There was no prohibition, just outcry. :| You must be unfamiliar with Islamic law. Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. Muslim outcry was based on the prohibition found in Islamic Law (think about it, if the law didn't prohibit the draws, why would Muslims be mad?). The outcry to the holocaust day will be based solely on a feeling of being offended, it will not be rooted in Jewish law. Thee groundings for the outcries are different in kind. One exists because of a prohibition and the other is because of emotions.
That depends entirely.. Countries like Egypt are secular nations and don't enforce that.. Your stereotyping a entire religion... When those types of things arn't enforced nor cared about in large portions of the region..
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] No, their art isn't more valuable, it's just that their point in drawing Muhammad has more oomph since there is an entire segment of a religion trying to prevent them from depicting Muhammad and threatened violence against Matt and Trey if they did so. No one is telling people not to draw pictures of the holocaust. Can important points be made by depicting the holocaust? Yes, but the points would be amplified if people where actually against drawing the holocaust. VandalvideoIt isn't the entire religion, but merely fringe elements that are trying to prevent it. And it isn't like they have any real power to prevent it in the first place. These people have the power, if they so choose, to draw Muhammed. Their drawing Muhammed furthers no particular agenda or goal. It does not protect any particular right more-so than it was before. Such rights are protected by law. However, their actions are also instigating violence and creating civil unrest. They are borderline sociopaths who are engaging in pointless activities with no real value knowing full well they are inciting violence. That is immaturity on the greatest level, far more than chili jokes. Me drawing Muhammad does not incite violence anymore than me drawing Jesus incites violence. The responsibility of the violence rests in the minds and actions of those that actually commit the violence. And yes, it's not all Muslims asking for people to not draw Muhammad, but the ones who are asking for a prohibition do so under the context of speaking for Islam rite-large. Also, it's important not to let violence prohibit us from expressing our rights. If you do, than your promoting coercion.
Which is a restriction on speech . . . because the newspaper is not allowed to speak in any fashion it chooses. Any limitation on press is also a limitation on a type of speech. fat_robEither way - if you're all referring to the Reporters Without Borders index - it does not have much to do with freedom of speech because it does not assess the laws of the country it's assessing. It only polls certain people. So the index is not accurate way to say the US has a low degree of freedom of speech, like the index would want you to believe.
Me drawing Muhammad does not incite violence anymore than me drawing Jesus incites violence. The responsibility of the violence rests in the minds and actions of those that actually commit the violence. And yes, it's not all Muslims asking for people to not draw Muhammad, but the ones who are asking for a prohibition do so under the context of speaking for Islam rite-large. Also, it's important not to let violence prohibit us from expressing our rights. If you do, than your promoting coercion.fat_robDo you even know what it means to incite violence? When you do something, and people react to that something; it means you incited it. When people wantonly draw Muhammed knowing full well that people will react with violence, that is inciting violence. These artists KNEW that it would cause civil unrest and did it anyway. They are sociopaths, plain and simple. I didn't say that the artists are responsible for the violence itself, although I could see a logical argument for that stance, but merely that they are responsible for being total sociopaths and inciting the violence. They are the instigators. The violence is a direct result of their reckless disregard for other people.
:| You must be unfamiliar with Islamic law. Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. Muslim outcry was based on the prohibition found in Islamic Law (think about it, if the law didn't prohibit the draws, why would Muslims be mad?). The outcry to the holocaust day will be based solely on a feeling of being offended, it will not be rooted in Jewish law. Thee groundings for the outcries are different in kind. One exists because of a prohibition and the other is because of emotions. Erm... so Muslims chose not to draw Mohammed for religious reasons but the people who did had never been prohibited from doing so. I don't see your point at all. The people asking for a prohibition expect us who are not Muslim to follow Islamic law and they punish people under that guise. That's the point. It's like the US Police officer attempting to ticket a person in China for J-Walking. If it's not a law in China, then the US has no grounds for expecting the Chinese to follow it and cannot be mad when the Chinese do not follow it.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]No. There was no prohibition, just outcry.jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Me drawing Muhammad does not incite violence anymore than me drawing Jesus incites violence. The responsibility of the violence rests in the minds and actions of those that actually commit the violence. And yes, it's not all Muslims asking for people to not draw Muhammad, but the ones who are asking for a prohibition do so under the context of speaking for Islam rite-large. Also, it's important not to let violence prohibit us from expressing our rights. If you do, than your promoting coercion.VandalvideoDo you even know what it means to incite violence? When you do something, and people react to that something; it means you incited it. When people wantonly draw Muhammed knowing full well that people will react with violence, that is inciting violence. These artists KNEW that it would cause civil unrest and did it anyway. They are sociopaths, plain and simple. I didn't say that the artists are responsible for the violence itself, although I could see a logical argument for that stance, but merely that they are responsible for being total sociopaths and inciting the violence. They are the instigators. The violence is a direct result of their reckless disregard for other people. That argument is pretty weak. Black people used to be able to incite violence by simply walking on a "white only" beach. Certainly, they knew that action would likely lead to confrontation, but they did it anyway - and justifiably so. People can be offended by a wide variety of things - so either you pass laws preventing people from basically doing anything that could possibly offend someone, or you tell people to chill out. Who cares what someone else believes or writes. Focus on your self and living your own good life.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Me drawing Muhammad does not incite violence anymore than me drawing Jesus incites violence. The responsibility of the violence rests in the minds and actions of those that actually commit the violence. And yes, it's not all Muslims asking for people to not draw Muhammad, but the ones who are asking for a prohibition do so under the context of speaking for Islam rite-large. Also, it's important not to let violence prohibit us from expressing our rights. If you do, than your promoting coercion.VandalvideoDo you even know what it means to incite violence? When you do something, and people react to that something; it means you incited it. When people wantonly draw Muhammed knowing full well that people will react with violence, that is inciting violence. These artists KNEW that it would cause civil unrest and did it anyway. They are sociopaths, plain and simple. I didn't say that the artists are responsible for the violence itself, although I could see a logical argument for that stance, but merely that they are responsible for being total sociopaths and inciting the violence. They are the instigators. The violence is a direct result of their reckless disregard for other people. So Civil Rights protesters were psychopaths too? Because by going to the segregated lunch counters, they incited the violence of the racist people who ran the stores and the police. :| That's the logical conclusion of your argument.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Erm... so Muslims chose not to draw Mohammed for religious reasons but the people who did had never been prohibited from doing so. I don't see your point at all. The people asking for a prohibition expect us who are not Muslim to follow Islamic law and they punish people under that guise. That's the point. It's like the US Police officer attempting to ticket a person in China for J-Walking. If it's not a law in China, then the US has no grounds for expecting the Chinese to follow it and cannot be mad when the Chinese do not follow it. Nobody's expecting US to follow Islamic law because nobody was asking for a prohibition on Draw Mohammed Day - they (we) were saying don't be an ass, you're clearly doing it just to piss muslims off.[QUOTE="fat_rob"] :| You must be unfamiliar with Islamic law. Islamic law prohibits depictions of Muhammad. Muslim outcry was based on the prohibition found in Islamic Law (think about it, if the law didn't prohibit the draws, why would Muslims be mad?). The outcry to the holocaust day will be based solely on a feeling of being offended, it will not be rooted in Jewish law. Thee groundings for the outcries are different in kind. One exists because of a prohibition and the other is because of emotions. fat_rob
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]Uh, they are linked concepts. You can't have free press without free speech.FamikingExactly. You can't have free press without free speech. But you can have free speech without free press. You can take a newspaper to court for saying false things abou you that damage your public image - for example. If you can take any institution to court about saying something about you then that's not full free speach.
[ So Civil Rights protesters were psychopaths too? Because by going to the segregated lunch counters, they incited the violence of the racist people who ran the stores and the police. :| That's the logical conclusion of your argument. fat_robBig difference between psychopath and sociopath. A sociopath merely acts without regards to the rest of society, often times in pursuit of their own agendas. Yes, many of them were sociopaths by nature. To incite violence is to act with reckless disregard for the rest of society. It makes people a law unto themselves.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Erm... so Muslims chose not to draw Mohammed for religious reasons but the people who did had never been prohibited from doing so. I don't see your point at all.The people asking for a prohibition expect us who are not Muslim to follow Islamic law and they punish people under that guise. That's the point. It's like the US Police officer attempting to ticket a person in China for J-Walking. If it's not a law in China, then the US has no grounds for expecting the Chinese to follow it and cannot be mad when the Chinese do not follow it. Nobody's expecting US to follow Islamic law because nobody was asking for a prohibition on Draw Mohammed Day - they (we) were saying don't be an ass, you're clearly doing it just to piss muslims off. The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="fat_rob"][ So Civil Rights protesters were psychopaths too? Because by going to the segregated lunch counters, they incited the violence of the racist people who ran the stores and the police. :| That's the logical conclusion of your argument. VandalvideoBig difference between psychopath and sociopath. A sociopath merely acts without regards to the rest of society, often times in pursuit of their own agendas. Yes, many of them were sociopaths by nature. To incite violence is to act with reckless disregard for the rest of society. It makes people a law unto themselves. Yeah, I used/read the wrong word. And if that's your working definition of sociopath than your gonna need to provide a strong argument how it's categorically a bad thing. Because it is absolutely insane to blame the violence of the Civil Rights movement on those who only desired freedom.
Nobody's expecting US to follow Islamic law because nobody was asking for a prohibition on Draw Mohammed Day - they (we) were saying don't be an ass, you're clearly doing it just to piss muslims off. The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The people asking for a prohibition expect us who are not Muslim to follow Islamic law and they punish people under that guise. That's the point. It's like the US Police officer attempting to ticket a person in China for J-Walking. If it's not a law in China, then the US has no grounds for expecting the Chinese to follow it and cannot be mad when the Chinese do not follow it. fat_rob
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
[QUOTE="sonicare"] That argument is pretty weak. Black people used to be able to incite violence by simply walking on a "white only" beach. Certainly, they knew that action would likely lead to confrontation, but they did it anyway - and justifiably so. People can be offended by a wide variety of things - so either you pass laws preventing people from basically doing anything that could possibly offend someone, or you tell people to chill out. Who cares what someone else believes or writes. Focus on your self and living your own good life.VandalvideoYou're misreading the argument. This argument does not place responsibility for subsequent acts onto the people who incite, it merely means I completely disrespect people who act with wanton disregard for society and other people. I do not like people who create civil unrest. I don't like the Klu Klux Klan. I think their marches are intended to soley incite violence and unrest. But they do have a right to march. And they do have a right not to be assaulted by angry people when they march. Freedom of speech means having to accept things you don't always like or agree with. The best thing to do in those situations is simply IGNORE the offending people. Once ignored, they tend to fade away. But instead, people tend to get so worked up over these things and give tons of free press and coverage to these events. I think this whole draw mohammed thing was childish, offensive, and stupid, but they still have a right to do it. I just won't participate in such a thing.
Nobody's expecting US to follow Islamic law because nobody was asking for a prohibition on Draw Mohammed Day - they (we) were saying don't be an ass, you're clearly doing it just to piss muslims off. The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.Yeah, all one of them who issued a "veiled threat". As soon as I find one guy who mouths off in the build up to Draw Holocaust Day, I'll see if I can get that splashed all over the media too and so justify Piss-Off-the-Jews-Day.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The people asking for a prohibition expect us who are not Muslim to follow Islamic law and they punish people under that guise. That's the point. It's like the US Police officer attempting to ticket a person in China for J-Walking. If it's not a law in China, then the US has no grounds for expecting the Chinese to follow it and cannot be mad when the Chinese do not follow it. fat_rob
Yeah, I used/read the wrong word. And if that's your working definition of sociopath than your gonna need to provide a strong argument how it's categorically a bad thing. Because it is absolutely insane to blame the violence of the Civil Rights movement on those who only desired freedom. fat_robThere are other venues by which people can act in order to advance their own goals. The problem with people in the Civil Rights movement is that if you take their example and apply it to other ideologies, you suddenly deprecate the rule of law and you allow for people to become a law unto themselves. While it may have worked out for the better this time, the ideology that people can disobey laws they don't agree with is a dangerous one. By what measure do we say who can and who can't disobey a law? If moral compass is the measuring stick, there are plenty of different moral compasses. Ought we to respect burglars who disagree with theft laws and go ahead and break the law anyway? No! It is a horrible example, allowing people to act on their own laurels and break law at whim. It creates a fragile society with a weak legal framework.
The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.[QUOTE="fat_rob"]
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Nobody's expecting US to follow Islamic law because nobody was asking for a prohibition on Draw Mohammed Day - they (we) were saying don't be an ass, you're clearly doing it just to piss muslims off.Disturbed123
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .[QUOTE="Disturbed123"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.
fat_rob
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .Right... and drawing Mohammed is going to solve that how exactly?[QUOTE="fat_rob"]Yeah, I used/read the wrong word. And if that's your working definition of sociopath than your gonna need to provide a strong argument how it's categorically a bad thing. Because it is absolutely insane to blame the violence of the Civil Rights movement on those who only desired freedom. VandalvideoThere are other venues by which people can act in order to advance their own goals. The problem with people in the Civil Rights movement is that if you take their example and apply it to other ideologies, you suddenly deprecate the rule of law and you allow for people to become a law unto themselves. While it may have worked out for the better this time, the ideology that people can disobey laws they don't agree with is a dangerous one. By what measure do we say who can and who can't disobey a law? If moral compass is the measuring stick, there are plenty of different moral compasses. Ought we to respect burglars who disagree with theft laws and go ahead and break the law anyway? No! It is a horrible example, allowing people to act on their own laurels and break law at whim. It creates a fragile society with a weak legal framework. See, here's where your example falters . . . What laws were the civil rights protesters breaking? A state law. A state law that was in contrast to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land. What law are the Muhammad people breaking? Islamic law, which holds no weight as a law in the US. How do you resolve that conflict? Laws can contradict each other too.
See, here's where your example falters . . . What laws were the civil rights protesters breaking? A state law. A state law that was in contrast to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land. What law are the Muhammad people breaking? Islamic law, which holds no weight as a law in the US. How do you resolve that conflict? Laws can contradict each other too. fat_robThey broke dozens of segregation laws which they thought were unjust. You can't just allow people to break whatever law they find unjust. That makes them a law unto themselves. Also, this is a poor analogy for the Muhammed people. They are two entirely different scenarios. I'm less concerned with the law in the Muhammed scenario and more with their reckless disregard and sociopathy.
[QUOTE="Disturbed123"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] The people who are angry at Matt and Trey and Draw Muhammad day DO expect us to abide by Islamic law. That's the whole point BEHIND EXTREMISM.
fat_rob
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .but everyone knows that what these people believe are wrong, anyone whos dumb enough to not believe that should be a replacement for Paris Hilton. Fact is every muslim know that theres a fatwa against bombings because they the literal text only refers to war, not suprise attacks AKA 9/11 for example. However, USA seem to be more concerned about these drawing then actually making it a better place to live. Rather than USA trying to sort out extremism, they taking digs at the ENTIRE muslim population, now, it seems only fair we take digs at the whole of USA to make mokery of the hollocaust.
Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .Right... and drawing Mohammed is going to solve that how exactly? It wasn't meant to solve anything. Black people sitting in segregated lunch counters didn't solve the civil rights crisis, but it catalyzed the discussion that eventually did solve the problem. Muhammad day is more about people attempting to make others more aware of an infringement of rights. It's not a solution. Anyone who sold it as a solution is a fool[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Disturbed123"]
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] See, here's where your example falters . . . What laws were the civil rights protesters breaking? A state law. A state law that was in contrast to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the land. What law are the Muhammad people breaking? Islamic law, which holds no weight as a law in the US. How do you resolve that conflict? Laws can contradict each other too. VandalvideoThey broke dozens of segregation laws which they thought were unjust. You can't just allow people to break whatever law they find unjust. That makes them a law unto themselves. Also, this is a poor analogy for the Muhammed people. They are two entirely different scenarios. I'm less concerned with the law in the Muhammed scenario and more with their reckless disregard and sociopathy. But which law where they supposed to follow? The constitution or the state's laws? The laws CONTRADICTED each other. And your distinction of the two situations should show you that sociopathy is not bad in of itself. Sometimes it's warranted.
But which law where they supposed to follow? The constitution or the state's laws? The laws CONTRADICTED each other. And your distinction of the two situations should show you that sociopathy is not bad in of itself. Sometimes it's warranted. fat_robActually, that is false. The laws only contradict after the Supreme Court says they do. Until then, they don't. And it only contradicts in the interpretations of the Supreme Court, it doesn't necessarily have to. And sociopathy is never warranted.
Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Disturbed123"]
Umm no they dont. You simply leave 1 person out of that poor excuse of a show. We are not saying get on your knees and worship allah or ill bomb your ass back to the hell, but people are so far stuck up their own backside they cant even listen to people around them because they are far too arrogant and dimbwitted.
Disturbed123
but everyone knows that what these people believe are wrong, anyone whos dumb enough to not believe that should be a replacement for Paris Hilton. Fact is every muslim know that theres a fatwa against bombings because they the literal text only refers to war, not suprise attacks AKA 9/11 for example. However, USA seem to be more concerned about these drawing then actually making it a better place to live. Rather than USA trying to sort out extremism, they taking digs at the ENTIRE muslim population, now, it seems only fair we take digs at the whole of USA to make mokery of the hollocaust.
That's the thing though, how does drawing the holocaust take a dig at the USA when no one is saying you can't draw the holocaust?[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Right... and drawing Mohammed is going to solve that how exactly? It wasn't meant to solve anything. Black people sitting in segregated lunch counters didn't solve the civil rights crisis, but it catalyzed the discussion that eventually did solve the problem. Muhammad day is more about people attempting to make others more aware of an infringement of rights. It's not a solution. Anyone who sold it as a solution is a fool Nobody's trying to justify terrorism here and every American has had the right to draw whatever the hell they wanted from the beginning. If blatantly and ineffectually showing disrespect for another culture is on a par with the civil rights movement in your head, then go ahead and do it, but don't expect everyone else to agree with your logic on that one.[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .fat_rob
[QUOTE="sonicare"] I don't like the Klu Klux Klan. I think their marches are intended to soley incite violence and unrest. But they do have a right to march. And they do have a right not to be assaulted by angry people when they march. Freedom of speech means having to accept things you don't always like or agree with. The best thing to do in those situations is simply IGNORE the offending people. Once ignored, they tend to fade away. But instead, people tend to get so worked up over these things and give tons of free press and coverage to these events. I think this whole draw mohammed thing was childish, offensive, and stupid, but they still have a right to do it. I just won't participate in such a thing.VandalvideoI did not say that these people do not have a right to broadcast their reckless messages. I merely stated that these people are immature and are not worth the time we give them. They are inciting violence purposefully, they are sociopaths. I give them NO respect. That I can agree with.
[QUOTE="Disturbed123"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] Not all Muslims. Some Muslims, the extremist, justify attacks on the west by grounding in Islamic law. Read the literature. It's blatantly apparent where the justification come form . . .fat_rob
but everyone knows that what these people believe are wrong, anyone whos dumb enough to not believe that should be a replacement for Paris Hilton. Fact is every muslim know that theres a fatwa against bombings because they the literal text only refers to war, not suprise attacks AKA 9/11 for example. However, USA seem to be more concerned about these drawing then actually making it a better place to live. Rather than USA trying to sort out extremism, they taking digs at the ENTIRE muslim population, now, it seems only fair we take digs at the whole of USA to make mokery of the hollocaust.
That's the thing though, how does drawing the holocaust take a dig at the USA when no one is saying you can't draw the holocaust?Really? Hasnt history taught us anything about certain bannings of the holocaust? Lets see how this all plans out, and lets see how facebook respond to this holocaust drawing garbage. It wont be pleasant, funnily enough, i bet the press will stir this situation so bad on the news theyll make Muslims look bad, without reflecting upon themselves what they did barely a week or two ago
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] But which law where they supposed to follow? The constitution or the state's laws? The laws CONTRADICTED each other. And your distinction of the two situations should show you that sociopathy is not bad in of itself. Sometimes it's warranted. VandalvideoActually, that is false. The laws only contradict after the Supreme Court says they do. Until then, they don't. And it only contradicts in the interpretations of the Supreme Court, it doesn't necessarily have to. And sociopathy is never warranted. Actually, the Constitution clearly stated the freedom of association back in 1787 and the reconstruction amendments cemented the freedom in the late 1860's . . . the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule it unconstitutional until the 50's is besides the point. The Jim Crow laws persisted way past the Supreme Court case, it took the CRA of '64 to rid the south of the laws. Not a Supreme Court edict. And you have not provided an argument against sociopathy when sociopathy can provide us with a more equal and freee society.
The Internet
Trolling since 1984
Here is a fun little fact, Muhammad was being drawn regularly in 16th and 17th century during Ottoman Empire and people kept creating depictions of him up until the 1970's. Hell here was even a film about him in 1976 called Muhammad: Messenger of God. It has been pretty low keep until the early 00's when all of a sudden nobody can draw him because it goes against their religion when it doesn't explicitly stat in the Qur'an that it is forbid to do so.
People just need to relax a bit if it offends you okay so it does you don't need to act like a fool on the News rioting and **** and to just realize not everybody thinks like you and if people find the Holocaust humorous or drawing Muhammad humorous then okay that is fine and dandy. I'm sorry if you can't find some sort of laughter at all then you are pretty much void of life and are probably either an ass to be around with or a boring old ****.
That's the thing though, how does drawing the holocaust take a dig at the USA when no one is saying you can't draw the holocaust?[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Disturbed123"]
but everyone knows that what these people believe are wrong, anyone whos dumb enough to not believe that should be a replacement for Paris Hilton. Fact is every muslim know that theres a fatwa against bombings because they the literal text only refers to war, not suprise attacks AKA 9/11 for example. However, USA seem to be more concerned about these drawing then actually making it a better place to live. Rather than USA trying to sort out extremism, they taking digs at the ENTIRE muslim population, now, it seems only fair we take digs at the whole of USA to make mokery of the hollocaust.
Disturbed123
Really? Hasnt history taught us anything about certain bannings of the holocaust? Lets see how this all plans out, and lets see how facebook respond to this holocaust drawing garbage. It wont be pleasant, funnily enough, i bet the press will stir this situation so bad on the news theyll make Muslims look bad, without reflecting upon themselves what they did barely a week or two ago
Facebook is a private institution and can do what they please. Fact is, there is no US law banning holocaust depictions. Now, if the Muhammad thing was German based and the holocaust drawing thing was geared towards Germany, I would concede that their is a valid reason (other than blatant free-speech) to hold the day. In that instance, Germany would be hypocritical.Actually, the Constitution clearly stated the freedom of association back in 1787 and the reconstruction amendments cemented the freedom in the late 1860's . . . the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule it unconstitutional until the 50's is besides the point. The Jim Crow laws persisted way past the Supreme Court case, it took the CRA of '64 to rid the south of the laws. Not a Supreme Court edict. And you have not provided an argument against sociopathy when sociopathy can provide us with a more equal and freee society. fat_robQuick legal lesson. There are thousands of ways to interpret freedom of association and the reconstruction amendments. While they are contrary to current jurisprudence, that doesn't mean that they were at the time. The tests employed by the Supreme Court were not in place during the time those laws were enacted. Until the Supreme Court rules on something, it is not unconstitutional. Why? Because there is no set test in the Constitution by which to measure the Constitution itself. The court is given wide range on how they choose to interpret the Constitution. Prior to the incorporation of the protected classes jurisprudence, African Americans were not considered peoples or allowed equal rights. Must they necessarily, under wording of the constitution, be a protected class? No. That was at the discretion of the Supreme Court. These tests are not written in stone until the Supreme Court says they are. Until a law is declared contradictory or unconstitutional, it is not. This is law 101. The Supreme Court is the schrodinger's cat of the law.
The Internet
Trolling since 1984
Here is a fun little fact, Muhammad was being drawn regularly in 16th and 17th century during Ottoman Empire and people kept creating depictions of him up until the 1970's. Hell here was even a film about him in 1976 called Muhammad: Messenger of God. It has been pretty low keep until the early 00's when all of a sudden nobody can draw him because it goes against their religion when it doesn't explicitly stat in the Qur'an that it is forbid to do so.
People just need to relax a bit if it offends you okay so it does you don't need to act like a fool on the News rioting and **** and to just realize not everybody thinks like you and if people find the Holocaust humorous or drawing Muhammad humorous then okay that is fine and dandy. I'm sorry if you can't find some sort of laughter at all then you are pretty much void of life and are probably either an ass to be around with or a boring old ****.
xXDrPainXx
This is the best post by far. I don't understand where all this drama is coming from.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]Right... and drawing Mohammed is going to solve that how exactly?It wasn't meant to solve anything. Black people sitting in segregated lunch counters didn't solve the civil rights crisis, but it catalyzed the discussion that eventually did solve the problem. Muhammad day is more about people attempting to make others more aware of an infringement of rights. It's not a solution. Anyone who sold it as a solution is a fool Nobody's trying to justify terrorism here and every American has had the right to draw whatever the hell they wanted from the beginning. If blatantly and ineffectually showing disrespect for another culture is on a par with the civil rights movement in your head, then go ahead and do it, but don't expect everyone else to agree with your logic on that one. No one here is justifying terrorism . . . look up Jihad Jane who recruited Muslim Americans to kill the Danish cartoonist who drew a picture of Muhammad. Americans have the right, other people don't respect the right and threaten violence when that right is exercised. The ACLU brags often about how it, successfully, argued for the right of American Nazi's to protest and march in the streets. The ACLU! Free speech is important, regardless if it is offensive and it is important that we don't succumb to threats of violence.jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] Actually, the Constitution clearly stated the freedom of association back in 1787 and the reconstruction amendments cemented the freedom in the late 1860's . . . the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule it unconstitutional until the 50's is besides the point. The Jim Crow laws persisted way past the Supreme Court case, it took the CRA of '64 to rid the south of the laws. Not a Supreme Court edict. And you have not provided an argument against sociopathy when sociopathy can provide us with a more equal and freee society. VandalvideoQuick legal lesson. There are thousands of ways to interpret freedom of association and the reconstruction amendments. While they are contrary to current jurisprudence, that doesn't mean that they were at the time. The tests employed by the Supreme Court were not in place during the time those laws were enacted. Until the Supreme Court rules on something, it is not unconstitutional. Why? Because there is no set test in the Constitution by which to measure the Constitution itself. The court is given wide range on how they choose to interpret the Constitution. Prior to the incorporation of the protected classes jurisprudence, African Americans were not considered peoples or allowed equal rights. Must they necessarily, under wording of the constitution, be a protected class? No. That was at the discretion of the Supreme Court. These tests are not written in stone until the Supreme Court says they are. Until a law is declared contradictory or unconstitutional, it is not. This is law 101. The Supreme Court is the schrodinger's cat of the law. And that's the problem with law and America in a nutshell. Relativism, the death of all things intellectual.
They never showed Muhammed in the movie, not even his voice. The amount of drawings that were made during the Ottaman Empire can be counted by your fingers. There weren't that many. In Kuwait, in 1997 (I was 4 y/o) in my art class someone drew "Mohammed" riding on a horse and he did get jumped at for drawing him. It's nothing new and it's a pretty well-known rule when ever 4 year olds know it.The Internet
Trolling since 1984
Here is a fun little fact, Muhammad was being drawn regularly in 16th and 17th century during Ottoman Empire and people kept creating depictions of him up until the 1970's. Hell here was even a film about him in 1976 called Muhammad: Messenger of God. It has been pretty low keep until the early 00's when all of a sudden nobody can draw him because it goes against their religion when it doesn't explicitly stat in the Qur'an that it is forbid to do so.
People just need to relax a bit if it offends you okay so it does you don't need to act like a fool on the News rioting and **** and to just realize not everybody thinks like you and if people find the Holocaust humorous or drawing Muhammad humorous then okay that is fine and dandy. I'm sorry if you can't find some sort of laughter at all then you are pretty much void of life and are probably either an ass to be around with or a boring old ****.
xXDrPainXx
And that's the problem with law and America in a nutshell. Relativism, the death of all things intellectual.fat_robThis isn't relativism. It is; The law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and until the Supreme Court speaks, it is whatever it is; and you follow it.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] And that's the problem with law and America in a nutshell. Relativism, the death of all things intellectual.VandalvideoThis isn't relativism. It is; The law is what the Supreme Court says it is, and until the Supreme Court speaks, it is whatever it is; and you follow it. That is relativism. The text of the constitution doesn't change but the effect of it does. lol How is that NOT relative?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment