That is relativism. The text of the constitution doesn't change but the effect of it does. lol How is that NOT relative?fat_robActually, that isn't necessarily correct. The text of the Constitution, depending on your legal stance, does change. It changes in the lexicon and wording. Does that mean that there is no correct interpretation or that it is relative to the viewer? Absolutely not. The law is what it is, whatever it is.
"Everyone Draw Holocaust Day" - June 30th ... Discussion ONLY
This topic is locked from further discussion.
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.By more incitive behaviour? I agree with you broadly, but this is not the way to achieve anything positive. Your right's there and always has been. Take part in this day if the free speech cause is really so noble to you.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] 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 fat_rob
[QUOTE="Disturbed123"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] 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? fat_rob
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.My statement related very little to the USA laws, its a generalisation. Yes, I know everyone will have the right to draw what ever the hell they want about the holocaust, im not bothered to be fair, but its certainly will spark up a bunch of people, and i would like to see how the people would react if this went publically rather than sum bogus social site. Fact of the matter is none of this should have been initiated in the first place. Yes "freedom of speech" crap, i head it a billion times before, but theres going to be a bunch of people that will retaliate, theres no morality, theres no logic, theres no conclusion, theres no "right" in any of this drawing garbage. So USA shouldnt have initiated it in the first place. Seriously, its like theyre acting like a bunch of 2 year olds "OH MUMMY HE DREW A PICTURE OF DADDY NOW AM GONNA DRAW A PICTURE OF HIS DADDY EATTING POOO".
[QUOTE="fat_rob"] That is relativism. The text of the constitution doesn't change but the effect of it does. lol How is that NOT relative?VandalvideoActually, that isn't necessarily correct. The text of the Constitution, depending on your legal stance, does change. It changes in the lexicon and wording. Does that mean that there is no correct interpretation or that it is relative to the viewer? Absolutely not. The law is what it is, whatever it is. That, right there is the definition of relativism. That something relatively stagnant (excluding an added amendment, the constitution does not physically change. The words on the page remain the same) can shift meanings based upon who reads it. Clarance Thomas and Sotomayor can both read the Constitution and come to different conclusions on what it means. Both are on the SC. There is relativism in the SC.
That, right there is the definition of relativism. That something relatively stagnant (excluding an added amendment, the constitution does not physically change. The words on the page remain the same) can shift meanings based upon who reads it. Clarance Thomas and Sotomayor can both read the Constitution and come to different conclusions on what it means. Both are on the SC. There is relativism in the SC. fat_robThat isn't completely accurate on how the law works though. Merely because there are different interpretations, and this is the case in EVERY legal society, does not mean that the law itself is relative. Merely because there are different interpretations does not mean that there is not a correct interpretation. In fact, there is a correct interpretation. You want to know what that is? It is whatever it is at the time, until the Supreme Court speaks.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]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.By more incitive behaviour? I agree with you broadly, but this is not the way to achieve anything positive. Your right's there and always has been. Take part in this day if the free speech cause is really so noble to you. If someone or some group was actively campaigning against drawing pictures of the holocaust, I'd go out and buy a copy of Maus (especially since I lost mine years ago). I didn't participate in the draw Muhammad day, but I respect people's right to do it.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]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. jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]That, right there is the definition of relativism. That something relatively stagnant (excluding an added amendment, the constitution does not physically change. The words on the page remain the same) can shift meanings based upon who reads it. Clarance Thomas and Sotomayor can both read the Constitution and come to different conclusions on what it means. Both are on the SC. There is relativism in the SC. VandalvideoThat isn't completely accurate on how the law works though. Merely because there are different interpretations, and this is the case in EVERY legal society, does not mean that the law itself is relative. Merely because there are different interpretations does not mean that there is not a correct interpretation. In fact, there is a correct interpretation. You want to know what that is? It is whatever it is at the time, until the Supreme Court speaks. lol and that is why it's relative. Because the SC has and will contradict itself and SC decisions are based upon the relative opinions of its members.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] 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.By more incitive behaviour? I agree with you broadly, but this is not the way to achieve anything positive. Your right's there and always has been. Take part in this day if the free speech cause is really so noble to you. If someone or some group was actively campaigning against drawing pictures of the holocaust, I'd go out and buy a copy of Maus (especially since I lost mine years ago). I didn't participate in the draw Muhammad day, but I respect people's right to do it.fat_rob
Yeah, somebody is... somebody always is. Still, just as drawing Mohammed is going to do nothing in countries where it's prohibited, drawing pictures of the holocaust is going to do nothing good for countries where e.g. holocaust denial is a crime.
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.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="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
Disturbed123
My statement related very little to the USA laws, its a generalisation. Yes, I know everyone will have the right to draw what ever the hell they want about the holocaust, im not bothered to be fair, but its certainly will spark up a bunch of people, and i would like to see how the people would react if this went publically rather than sum bogus social site. Fact of the matter is none of this should have been initiated in the first place. Yes "freedom of speech" crap, i head it a billion times before, but theres going to be a bunch of people that will retaliate, theres no morality, theres no logic, theres no conclusion, theres no "right" in any of this drawing garbage. So USA shouldnt have initiated it in the first place. Seriously, its like theyre acting like a bunch of 2 year olds "OH MUMMY HE DREW A PICTURE OF DADDY NOW AM GONNA DRAW A PICTURE OF HIS DADDY EATTING POOO".
But why shouldn't the USA (or the other countries that did this, like New Zealand) have a draw Muhammad day? Cause it's offensive? Boo Hoo. You don't like it, don't participate. Same with with this holocaust drawing day. If people don't like it, don't participate. The people who want this day can have it and as I've said before, there are already many depictions of the holocaust present in USA culture. My main contention is I don't see the point of the retaliation since depictions of the holocaust are so rampant in western society already . . .lol and that is why it's relative. Because the SC has and will contradict itself and SC decisions are based upon the relative opinions of its members.fat_robProve to me that the Supreme Court, at any given moment, when they decide a court case could have decided the other way. Prove to me that there is not one will which, no matter how many times you go back in time, would not exert itself over and over. When you say that it is relative, you assume that the Supreme Court could have chosen otherwise. PS: This is a trick question, because I know you can't prove free will.
[QUOTE="Disturbed123"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] 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. fat_rob
My statement related very little to the USA laws, its a generalisation. Yes, I know everyone will have the right to draw what ever the hell they want about the holocaust, im not bothered to be fair, but its certainly will spark up a bunch of people, and i would like to see how the people would react if this went publically rather than sum bogus social site. Fact of the matter is none of this should have been initiated in the first place. Yes "freedom of speech" crap, i head it a billion times before, but theres going to be a bunch of people that will retaliate, theres no morality, theres no logic, theres no conclusion, theres no "right" in any of this drawing garbage. So USA shouldnt have initiated it in the first place. Seriously, its like theyre acting like a bunch of 2 year olds "OH MUMMY HE DREW A PICTURE OF DADDY NOW AM GONNA DRAW A PICTURE OF HIS DADDY EATTING POOO".
But why shouldn't the USA (or the other countries that did this, like New Zealand) have a draw Muhammad day? Cause it's offensive? Boo Hoo. You don't like it, don't participate. Same with with this holocaust drawing day. If people don't like it, don't participate. The people who want this day can have it and as I've said before, there are already many depictions of the holocaust present in USA culture. My main contention is I don't see the point of the retaliation since depictions of the holocaust are so rampant in western society already . . .You can. Just don't see people who call it a dickish thing to do as attacking your freedom of speech but as insulting you personally for the decisions you make.If someone or some group was actively campaigning against drawing pictures of the holocaust, I'd go out and buy a copy of Maus (especially since I lost mine years ago). I didn't participate in the draw Muhammad day, but I respect people's right to do it.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]By more incitive behaviour? I agree with you broadly, but this is not the way to achieve anything positive. Your right's there and always has been. Take part in this day if the free speech cause is really so noble to you.jimmyjammer69
Yeah, somebody is... somebody always is. Still, just as drawing Mohammed is going to do nothing in countries where it's prohibited, drawing pictures of the holocaust is going to do nothing good for countries where e.g. holocaust denial is a crime.
That's not the aim of the day though . . . and the violence against the Muhammad drawers extended past the countries where it is prohibited. The Danish cartoonist gets attacked where ever he goes in Europe . . .[QUOTE="fat_rob"] lol and that is why it's relative. Because the SC has and will contradict itself and SC decisions are based upon the relative opinions of its members.VandalvideoProve to me that the Supreme Court, at any given moment, when they decide a court case could have decided the other way. Prove to me that there is not one will which, no matter how many times you go back in time, would not exert itself over and over. When you say that it is relative, you assume that the Supreme Court could have chosen otherwise. PS: This is a trick question, because I know you can't prove free will. Ah, so your a determinist?
Do 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. Vandalvideo
So your position is that an artist that stands up against intimidation is a sociopath, right? Refusing to back down from a deranged; frothing at the mouth mob makes one a sociopath, eh?
Ridiculous.
Refusing to yield to violent fanatics does not make one a sociopath. Antagonizing violent fanatics is heroic, not sociopathic.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] If someone or some group was actively campaigning against drawing pictures of the holocaust, I'd go out and buy a copy of Maus (especially since I lost mine years ago). I didn't participate in the draw Muhammad day, but I respect people's right to do it. fat_rob
Yeah, somebody is... somebody always is. Still, just as drawing Mohammed is going to do nothing in countries where it's prohibited, drawing pictures of the holocaust is going to do nothing good for countries where e.g. holocaust denial is a crime.
That's not the aim of the day though . . . and the violence against the Muhammad drawers extended past the countries where it is prohibited. The Danish cartoonist gets attacked where ever he goes in Europe . . .So now you know all the aims of the day too, just as you did with the Draw Mohammed Day? People are complicated, and although they say that the aim of their actions is X, it may well be otherwise. People participated for different reasons, probably a lot of them just because they like their memes and bandwagons. People may feel they have valid reasons for taking part in the Mohammed Day or the Holocaust Day but do you really think the overall consequences are desirable in either?[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Disturbed123"]But why shouldn't the USA (or the other countries that did this, like New Zealand) have a draw Muhammad day? Cause it's offensive? Boo Hoo. You don't like it, don't participate. Same with with this holocaust drawing day. If people don't like it, don't participate. The people who want this day can have it and as I've said before, there are already many depictions of the holocaust present in USA culture. My main contention is I don't see the point of the retaliation since depictions of the holocaust are so rampant in western society already . . .You can. Just don't see people who call it a dickish thing to do as attacking your freedom of speech but as insluting you personally for the decisions you make. Oh, I agree that it's a dick move :lol: that's not an attack free speech. The attacks on free speech come from the people who scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and react violently when or if I choose to draw Muhammad or Jesus. You have the right to protest against my drawing and you can say it's wrong and that I OUGHT not do it, but that's an ethical argument. That's different from the protest we see where people unequivocally state that I am not allowed to draw Muhammad.My statement related very little to the USA laws, its a generalisation. Yes, I know everyone will have the right to draw what ever the hell they want about the holocaust, im not bothered to be fair, but its certainly will spark up a bunch of people, and i would like to see how the people would react if this went publically rather than sum bogus social site. Fact of the matter is none of this should have been initiated in the first place. Yes "freedom of speech" crap, i head it a billion times before, but theres going to be a bunch of people that will retaliate, theres no morality, theres no logic, theres no conclusion, theres no "right" in any of this drawing garbage. So USA shouldnt have initiated it in the first place. Seriously, its like theyre acting like a bunch of 2 year olds "OH MUMMY HE DREW A PICTURE OF DADDY NOW AM GONNA DRAW A PICTURE OF HIS DADDY EATTING POOO".
jimmyjammer69
So depicting a systematic mass murder is being equated by some as the equivalent of satirical drawings of a prophet. I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one.
This is where government needs to take a stand, freedom of speech to this is extreme is something I will never advocate, speech that is only used for inciting violence should never be allowed. I am glad europe takes a stance on it with public demonstrations, I hope America does as well.
So depicting a systematic mass murder is being equated by some as the equivalent of satirical drawings of a prophet. I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one.
QuistisTrepe_
There is no one over the other, and you shouldn't try to defend it, both are highly highly offensive, however I believe the person who came up with this one is probably just someone wanting to see the reaction of people when it's toward something other than islamic figures, that way they will call double standard.
This is where government needs to take a stand, freedom of speech to this is extreme is something I will never advocate, speech that is only used for inciting violence should never be allowed. I am glad europe takes a stance on it with public demonstrations, I hope America does as well.
Espada12
Um, read the US Constitution?
In order for your wish to come true, then that would require that a Constitutional amendment that repeals the 1st amendment be ratified. This would require approval by two thirds of Congress as well as three fourths of the state legislatures.
In other words: not going to happen.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]That's not the aim of the day though . . . and the violence against the Muhammad drawers extended past the countries where it is prohibited. The Danish cartoonist gets attacked where ever he goes in Europe . . .So now you know all the aims of the day too, just as you did with the Draw Mohammed Day? People are complicated, and although they say that the aim of their actions is X, it may well be otherwise. People participated for different reasons, probably a lot of them just because they like their memes and bandwagons. People may feel they have valid reasons for taking part in the Mohammed Day or the Holocaust Day but do you really think the overall consequences are desirable in either? I can only take people on their word. If others had perverse motives for doing the Muhammad day then that's on them, not me if they decided not to publish their true motives or aims. I can't read minds (though that'd be sweet). As far as the consequences are concerned, eh, it depends on the level of the threat. In the USA, the level of the threat is minimal. In Europe, it's higher. Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere. The chances that European countries, in the name of civility, pass a law that restricts "offensive" speech is greater than in America. So it might be more worth it in Europe sense there is a greater threat to freedom. My main concern is this . . . anything can be offensive and can "incite" violence. Hell, people started fighting at a health care town hall in the USA because someone called the reform plan socialist . . . My worry is the slippery slope. Plus I hate people who attempt to police thought and legislate morality . . . that's a dangerous road.Yeah, somebody is... somebody always is. Still, just as drawing Mohammed is going to do nothing in countries where it's prohibited, drawing pictures of the holocaust is going to do nothing good for countries where e.g. holocaust denial is a crime.
jimmyjammer69
You can. Just don't see people who call it a dickish thing to do as attacking your freedom of speech but as insluting you personally for the decisions you make. Oh, I agree that it's a dick move :lol: that's not an attack free speech. The attacks on free speech come from the people who scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and react violently when or if I choose to draw Muhammad or Jesus. You have the right to protest against my drawing and you can say it's wrong and that I OUGHT not do it, but that's an ethical argument. That's different from the protest we see where people unequivocally state that I am not allowed to draw Muhammad. Like you say, people will always scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and they'll time and again be proven wrong. If you're fighting moral indignation, then you've got a tough time ahead of you, full of pointless blaspheming and causing unnecessary offence. If you agree it's a dick move but are still trying to claim the moral high ground, though, then it's time to change tack.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] But why shouldn't the USA (or the other countries that did this, like New Zealand) have a draw Muhammad day? Cause it's offensive? Boo Hoo. You don't like it, don't participate. Same with with this holocaust drawing day. If people don't like it, don't participate. The people who want this day can have it and as I've said before, there are already many depictions of the holocaust present in USA culture. My main contention is I don't see the point of the retaliation since depictions of the holocaust are so rampant in western society already . . .fat_rob
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
This is where government needs to take a stand, freedom of speech to this is extreme is something I will never advocate, speech that is only used for inciting violence should never be allowed. I am glad europe takes a stance on it with public demonstrations, I hope America does as well.
dkrustyklown
Um, read the US Constitution?
In order for your wish to come true, then that would require that a Constitutional amendment that repeals the 1st amendment be ratified. This would require approval by two thirds of Congress as well as three fourths of the state legislatures.
In other words: not going to happen.
I know this. However you do realise they are laws already in effect limiting your freedom of speech right? I'm not asking for the constitution to be changed, just laws to be put in place.
[QUOTE="fat_rob"]Oh, I agree that it's a dick move :lol: that's not an attack free speech. The attacks on free speech come from the people who scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and react violently when or if I choose to draw Muhammad or Jesus. You have the right to protest against my drawing and you can say it's wrong and that I OUGHT not do it, but that's an ethical argument. That's different from the protest we see where people unequivocally state that I am not allowed to draw Muhammad. Like you say, people will always scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and they'll time and again be proven wrong. If you're fighting moral indignation, then you've got a tough time ahead of you, full of pointless blaspheming and causing unnecessary offence. If you agree it's a dick move but are still trying to claim the moral high ground, though, then it's time to change tack. Not really, my opposition to an action does not give me grounds to coerce others not to commit that action. The people who shout "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" don't recognize that point and therefore people have to work to defend freedom (through non-violence). While the Muhammad and holocaust instances are exceptionally trivial, it's not hard to imagine instances where the subject at hand isn't trivial.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]You can. Just don't see people who call it a dickish thing to do as attacking your freedom of speech but as insluting you personally for the decisions you make.jimmyjammer69
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
So depicting a systematic mass murder is being equated by some as the equivalent of satirical drawings of a prophet. I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one.
Espada12
There is no one over the other, and you shouldn't try to defend it, both are highly highly offensive, however I believe the person who came up with this one is probably just someone wanting to see the reaction of people when it's toward something other than islamic figures, that way they will call double standard.
Given your prior remarks in our last exchange, there isn't any reason for me to have to defend my remarks here.
I know this. However you do realise they are laws already in effect limiting your freedom of speech right? I'm not asking for the constitution to be changed, just laws to be put in place.
Espada12
You are asking for laws that directly contradict the word and intent of the US Constitution. In other words, you are asking that the Constitution be subverted.
If you want to change the Constitution, then you have to follow the amendment process. You can't just change the Constitution by statute.
It has already been established that blasphemy and offensive jokes about sensitive topics are protected by the 1st amendment. This is irrefutable. The only way to make blasphemy and offensive jokes not be protected by the 1st amendment is to either repeal or change the 1st amendment. This can only be done with another amendment.
Blasphemy is protected free speech. Deal with it.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]
So depicting a systematic mass murder is being equated by some as the equivalent of satirical drawings of a prophet. I'm going to have to go with "no" on that one.
QuistisTrepe_
There is no one over the other, and you shouldn't try to defend it, both are highly highly offensive, however I believe the person who came up with this one is probably just someone wanting to see the reaction of people when it's toward something other than islamic figures, that way they will call double standard.
Given your prior remarks in our last exchange, there isn't any reason for me to have to defend my remarks here.
I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I know this. However you do realise they are laws already in effect limiting your freedom of speech right? I'm not asking for the constitution to be changed, just laws to be put in place.
Espada12
In 1990, Congress tried to ban the flag burning...but the Supreme Court struck the law down because of the 1st amendment.
Attempting to ban the depiction of the holocaust or mohammed would be struck down on similar grounds.
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] Oh, I agree that it's a dick move :lol: that's not an attack free speech. The attacks on free speech come from the people who scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and react violently when or if I choose to draw Muhammad or Jesus. You have the right to protest against my drawing and you can say it's wrong and that I OUGHT not do it, but that's an ethical argument. That's different from the protest we see where people unequivocally state that I am not allowed to draw Muhammad.Like you say, people will always scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and they'll time and again be proven wrong. If you're fighting moral indignation, then you've got a tough time ahead of you, full of pointless blaspheming and causing unnecessary offence. If you agree it's a dick move but are still trying to claim the moral high ground, though, then it's time to change tack. Not really, my opposition to an action does not give me grounds to coerce others not to commit that action. The people who shout "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" don't recognize that point and therefore people have to work to defend freedom (through non-violence). While the Muhammad and holocaust instances are exceptionally trivial, it's not hard to imagine instances where the subject at hand isn't trivial.fat_rob
So you want to precipitate a landslide to protest against a slippery slope?
Moral outrage is going to exist as long as the will to power and these days aren't going to do a thing to change that.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
I know this. However you do realise they are laws already in effect limiting your freedom of speech right? I'm not asking for the constitution to be changed, just laws to be put in place.
dkrustyklown
You are asking for laws that directly contradict the word and intent of the US Constitution. In other words, you are asking that the Constitution be subverted.
If you want to change the Constitution, then you have to follow the amendment process. You can't just change the Constitution by statute.
It has already been established that blasphemy and offensive jokes about sensitive topics are protected by the 1st amendment. This is irrefutable. The only way to make blasphemy and offensive jokes not be protected by the 1st amendment is to either repeal or change the 1st amendment. This can only be done with another amendment.
Blasphemy is protected free speech. Deal with it.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Wait what???
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Wait what???
Espada12
You cite the definition of defamation. LOL, what does that have to do with depicting mohammed or the holocaust? I suggest that you read the very definition that you cite and explain to us how that applies to depictions of mohammed or the holocaust.
I'll save you some time, though. It doesn't.
Here is the pertinent section: Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Do you see the word, "false" in that statement? Yeah, it has to be "false" in order to be defamation. By its very nature, a drawing of mohammed or a general statement of opinion cannot be defamation.
Not really, my opposition to an action does not give me grounds to coerce others not to commit that action. The people who shout "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" don't recognize that point and therefore people have to work to defend freedom (through non-violence). While the Muhammad and holocaust instances are exceptionally trivial, it's not hard to imagine instances where the subject at hand isn't trivial.[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Like you say, people will always scream "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!" and they'll time and again be proven wrong. If you're fighting moral indignation, then you've got a tough time ahead of you, full of pointless blaspheming and causing unnecessary offence. If you agree it's a dick move but are still trying to claim the moral high ground, though, then it's time to change tack.jimmyjammer69
So you want to precipitate a landslide to protest against a slippery slope?
Moral outrage is going to exist as long as the will to power and these days aren't going to do a thing to change that.
My specific aim in supporting these days (and ultimately I do support the Holocaust day, even though I think it's point is less relevant than the Muhammad day) is to raise awareness that some people, if they had their druthers, would make it so it is illegal to say offensive things. If we remain passive to moral outrage, then we'll end up in a society that attempts to legislate away our right to do certain things. I, personally, don't like to offend people and I generally rail against people who do (just for the sake of being offensive) and tell them they ought not do so, but since many people try to legislate behavior and since I place preservation of freedom above many other "values" I'm pigeonholed into supporting these types of days by logic (and I don't regret supporting these days. If I did I would change my values. I just recognize that this is the logical conclusion of what my values are). If I say people shouldn't draw Muhammad because it's offensive, what grounds do I have to permit anything?[QUOTE="Espada12"]
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
Wait what???
dkrustyklown
You cite the definition of defamation. LOL, what does that have to do with depicting mohammed or the holocaust? I suggest that you read the very definition that you cite and explain to us how that applies to depictions of mohammed or the holocaust.
I'll save you some time, though. It doesn't.
Here is the pertinent section: Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.
Do you see the word, "false" in that statement? Yeah, it has to be "false" in order to be defamation. By its very nature, a drawing of mohammed or a general statement of opinion cannot be defamation.
Read what I bolded from your post and then link it to what I posted and you may have your answer. Can't you remember what we were discussing in the first place?
[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="fat_rob"] Not really, my opposition to an action does not give me grounds to coerce others not to commit that action. The people who shout "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" don't recognize that point and therefore people have to work to defend freedom (through non-violence). While the Muhammad and holocaust instances are exceptionally trivial, it's not hard to imagine instances where the subject at hand isn't trivial. fat_rob
So you want to precipitate a landslide to protest against a slippery slope?
Moral outrage is going to exist as long as the will to power and these days aren't going to do a thing to change that.
My specific aim in supporting these days (and ultimately I do support the Holocaust day, even though I think it's point is less relevant than the Muhammad day) is to raise awareness that some people, if they had their druthers, would make it so it is illegal to say offensive things. If we remain passive to moral outrage, then we'll end up in a society that attempts to legislate away our right to do certain things. I, personally, don't like to offend people and I generally rail against people who do (just for the sake of being offensive) and tell them they ought not do so, but since many people try to legislate behavior and since I place preservation of freedom above many other "values" I'm pigeonholed into supporting these types of days by logic (and I don't regret supporting these days. If I did I would change my values. I just recognize that this is the logical conclusion of what my values are). If I say people shouldn't draw Muhammad because it's offensive, what grounds do I have to permit anything?When most people say "You shouldn't do that!" or "You're an ass to do that!" they're expressing an opinion - nothing more. Once again, we're not talking about any legislation in sight in America, so to call this pre-emptive would be an understatement.
If you want to teach people not to express their opinion if they're part of a minority, then this is a good way to do it. There have been NO deaths as a result of this Draw Mohammed Day, but probably a lot of Muslims now feel the whole of America's got it in for them. This is all fine when you're on the firing squad, but if people feel they shouldn't bother showing any common decency as long as they're on the bandwagon, then what happens the next time YOUR minority's against the wall?
This is much worst than the Mohammed day. Why? People were tortured and killed on a MASSIVE scale. If it's meant to be mocking the event, then I sure as Hell don't support this.Lethalhazard
None are worse than the other for the specific group targeted. Don't support either, it's a waste of time and accomplish nothing other than to annoy people.
Read what I bolded from your post and then link it to what I posted and you may have your answer. Can't you remember what we were discussing in the first place?
Espada12
We are discussing draw Mohammed/holocaust days. That's what the OP is about. You are rambling on about how the government should ban such speech.
I pointed out how banning such speech would be unconstitutional, and backed up my assertion by citing case law.
You cited the definition of defamation, which firstly has nothing to do with the topic at hand and secondly exists from a very old common law tradition in which it is wrong to publish or tell lies about people in order to damage their reputation. Defamation and slander have never been protected by the 1st Amendment because defamation and slander are statements which are false and are intended to deceive.
Depicting mohammed=free speech protected by the 1st amendment
Depicting the holocaust=free speech protected by the 1st amendment
spreading lies and false rumors about people=slander & defamation that is not protected by the 1st amendment.
It really isn't very hard to grasp.
EDIT: Oh, and, I'm still waiting on you to cite some case law for us. Come one, break out the precedents that back up your position. I'll be waiting with bells on.
My specific aim in supporting these days (and ultimately I do support the Holocaust day, even though I think it's point is less relevant than the Muhammad day) is to raise awareness that some people, if they had their druthers, would make it so it is illegal to say offensive things. If we remain passive to moral outrage, then we'll end up in a society that attempts to legislate away our right to do certain things. I, personally, don't like to offend people and I generally rail against people who do (just for the sake of being offensive) and tell them they ought not do so, but since many people try to legislate behavior and since I place preservation of freedom above many other "values" I'm pigeonholed into supporting these types of days by logic (and I don't regret supporting these days. If I did I would change my values. I just recognize that this is the logical conclusion of what my values are). If I say people shouldn't draw Muhammad because it's offensive, what grounds do I have to permit anything?[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]
So you want to precipitate a landslide to protest against a slippery slope?
Moral outrage is going to exist as long as the will to power and these days aren't going to do a thing to change that.
jimmyjammer69
When most people say "You shouldn't do that!" or "You're an ass to do that!" they're expressing an opinion - nothing more. Once again, we're not talking about any legislation in sight in America, so to call this pre-emptive would be an understatement.
If you want to teach people not to express their opinion if they're part of a minority, then this is a good way to do it. There have been NO deaths as a result of this Draw Mohammed Day, but probably a lot of Muslims now feel the whole of America's got it in for them. This is all fine when you're on the firing squad, but if people feel they shouldn't bother showing any common decency as long as they're on the bandwagon, then what happens the next time YOUR minority's against the wall?
You'd be surprised what laws have tried to be passed through congress. Take a look at the DISCLOSE Act (and I realize that no law is in the house about banning images of Muhammad, but there are MANY laws in the house and senate that pertain to free speech). And my minority is against the wall a lot. I'm black and a libertarian lol. There are large swaths of people who say gross things about both those groups. I don't believe that people shouldn't expression their opinion. They should, but they must also realize that I have equal rights to express my ideas. The tendency of government is to restrict behavior, not permit more freedom. It some instances, I may have to exert my rights just to remind people that I have that right . . .[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Read what I bolded from your post and then link it to what I posted and you may have your answer. Can't you remember what we were discussing in the first place?
dkrustyklown
We are discussing draw Mohammed/holocaust days. That's what the OP is about. You are rambling on about how the government should ban such speech.
I pointed out how banning such speech would be unconstitutional, and backed up my assertion by citing case law.
You cited the definition of defamation, which firstly has nothing to do with the topic at hand and secondly exists from a very old common law tradition in which it is wrong to publish or tell lies about people in order to damage their reputation. Defamation and slander have never been protected by the 1st Amendment because defamation and slander are statements which are false and are intended to deceive.
Depicting mohammed=free speech protected by the 1st amendment
Depicting the holocaust=free speech protected by the 1st amendment
spreading lies and false rumors about people=slander & defamation that is not protected by the 1st amendment.
It really isn't very hard to grasp.
EDIT: Oh, and, I'm still waiting on you to cite some case law for us. Come one, break out the precedents that back up your position. I'll be waiting with bells on.
Again you are missing the point, you say defamation and slander are not backed by the first Amendment (and it isn't), THAT'S MY POINT, they selectively chose what is and what is not backed by the first amendment, obviously without changing they constitution they can do it for this.
I don't see why you need me to bring case law here, do you want me to cite every defamation case that has been successful for the plaintiff?
Again you are missing the point, you say defamation and slander are not backed by the first Amendment (and it isn't), THAT'S MY POINT, they selectively chose what is and what is not backed by the first amendment, obviously without changing they constitution they can do it for this.
I don't see why you need me to bring case law here, do you want me to cite every defamation case that has been successful for the plaintiff?
Espada12
I don't think that you understand how it works. An exception wasn't made to the 1st amendment for defamation and slander, you see, because defamation and slander were always standing common law doctrines going back to merry ole' England. The very people that wrote the 1st Amendment had a grasp on the concept of slander and defamation. Those founding fathers never intended for the 1st Amendment to protect slander and defamation. Slander and defamation were always cause for action in civil and criminal courts, even before the American Revolution.
Depictions of mohammed and the holocaust, however, are protected by the 1st Amendment. There is no law that could be passed that could change this and still be considered constitutional. Any law which attempted to forbid people from depicting mohammed would be unconstitutional.
What part of unconstitutional are you not understanding?
Again you are missing the point, you say defamation and slander are not backed by the first Amendment (and it isn't), THAT'S MY POINT, they selectively chose what is and what is not backed by the first amendment, obviously without changing they constitution they can do it for this.
I don't see why you need me to bring case law here, do you want me to cite every defamation case that has been successful for the plaintiff?
Espada12
I DEMAND that you cite case law backing up your position that government could ban drawing a cartoon just because you think that it is offensive.
Until you provide us with such case law, then your argument stands utterly defeated and discredited.
Ah, so depicting the murder of over 6 million people is akin to depicting a religious figure that some radicals get incensed about whenever he is drawn? Interesting conclusion.
SgtKevali
Again for the groups targeted YES IT IS. I find it hilarious people can support one but not the other and even try to justify it, it's either you support both or support none.
[QUOTE="Espada12"]
Again you are missing the point, you say defamation and slander are not backed by the first Amendment (and it isn't), THAT'S MY POINT, they selectively chose what is and what is not backed by the first amendment, obviously without changing they constitution they can do it for this.
I don't see why you need me to bring case law here, do you want me to cite every defamation case that has been successful for the plaintiff?
dkrustyklown
I don't think that you understand how it works. An exception wasn't made to the 1st amendment for defamation and slander, you see, because defamation and slander were always standing common law doctrines going back to merry ole' England. The very people that wrote the 1st Amendment had a grasp on the concept of slander and defamation. Those founding fathers never intended for the 1st Amendment to protect slander and defamation. Slander and defamation were always cause for action in civil and criminal courts, even before the American Revolution.
Depictions of mohammed and the holocaust, however, are protected by the 1st Amendment. There is no law that could be passed that could change this and still be considered constitutional. Any law which attempted to forbid people from depicting mohammed would be unconstitutional.
What part of unconstitutional are you not understanding?
Wait how do you know this? Were you there deliberating with them when they were writing up the constitution? Which part of making exceptions don't you understand? Every country has exceptions in law to circumvent rights granted by its constitution. If it doesn't happen it doesn't happen, I personally don't care, all I am saying is I support limits on freedom of speech and hope laws come in to place to do so in the US (well more). Also I know the history of defamation it doesn't matter as America drafted their constitution in direct conflict with England's way of doing things.
Also law does not have to directly denounce a right to limit it. For instance see gun control in states like NY and NJ, even though you have a RIGHT to bear arms, there is so much procedure than it becomes difficult to exercise that right and without proper clearance, it is ILLEGAL to bear arms, does this not go against your constitution? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers had the notion that you should be free to acquire arms without government interference. So again, yes they can if they wanted put a law in place to limit freedom of speech.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment