Free speech test?

60 posts / 0 new
Last post
mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535
Free speech test?
GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I don't agree at all. Just because there are radical terrorists out there that respond with violence does not mean they don't have the right to make the movie. So why does this movie not qualify as free speech but Bill Maher's movie Religulous does? You can't define whether it is free speech or not by the reaction of the audience. Since Christians don't respond with violence that make one movie ok over the other?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

It sounds like a French magazine is going to put it further to the test.

After a week of deadly, international protests against an anti-Islam film, a French satirical magazine is fueling the debate between freedom of expression and offensive provocation.

The magazine Charlie Hebdo published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the Prophet Mohammed in an issue that hit newsstands Wednesday.

Magazine director Stephane Charbonnier said his staff is "not really fueling the fire," but rather using its freedom of expression "to comment (on) the news in a satirical way."

"It happens that the news this week is Mohammed and this lousy film, so we are drawing cartoons about this subject," Charbonnier told CNN affiliate BFM-TV on Wednesday. "It's more turning in derision this grotesque film than to make fun of Mohammed."

Free speech or incitement? French mag runs cartoons of Prophet Mohammed - CNN.com

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

What ever happened to "We don't negotiate with terrorists"? So if we let the idea that terrorist in other country's could attack dictate our freedoms and policies, where do we draw the line? At the point where the liberals happen to agree? What about if they threatened to riot or attack if we elected a woman president or leader? If someone made a pro-Christian movie? That they insist we adopt Shari law? We can not let a bully dictate how we run our country.

Here in America we have the right to express our opinion. Where that be saying that you are Anti Muslim, or saying you are Anti Christian, or saying that you are Muslim or Christian. That is the beauty of living in a free country.

ETA - I will say it was foolish to send the video out to other countries, but that was still his prerogative.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I understand the argument, but I'm not sure if I agree with it. From the article:

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

Indeed, Justice Holmes' original example, shouting "fire" in a theater, is not a call to arms. Steve Klein, an outspoken anti-Islamic activist who said he helped with the film, told Al Jazeera television that it was "supposed to be provocative." The egregiousness of its smears, the apparent deception of cast and crew as to its contents and the deliberate effort to raise its profile in the Arab world a week before 9/11 all suggest intentionality.

I think I would have more sympathy for the film makers right to free speech if they hadn't specifically dubbed it in Arabic and then sent the link to Arab media outlets. I think from that it's pretty clear that they were specifically trying to get people riled up. From what I've read, the anti-Islam activitist made this movie and sent it in to the Arab news outlets because they specifically wanted to upset Arabs in the hopes that they would riot and show themselves to the world to be violent, reactionary, et cetera. It sounds to me like they got exactly the reaction they were hoping to provoke. The question is whether or not intentionally provoking violence is covered under the first amendment. At least from reading this article, it sounds like it is not.

Don't get me wrong, this is very gray area to me. I think that the Muslims that rioted and killed people are responsible for their own actions, and their actions are beyond wrong. You don't kill people over being offended! :rolleyes: I'm just saying that if the legal standard is that you aren't allowed to intentionally try to provoke violence, it sounds like these guys fail that test because I think they were intentionally trying to provoke violence.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

So Alissa, if a small little guy spits in the face of a great big guy and the big guy beats the pulp out of the little guy, is it the little guys fault legally?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Legally, I'm not sure. lol

Look, again, I'm not saying that the riots are anyone's "fault" other than the rioters. They had a choice not to react in that way, and the responsibility lays on them. I'm not siding with them in the slightest; I think their reaction was disgusting. I would be opposed to the film makers being charged with rioting or murder or anything that they actually did not do, only the rioters should be .

However, I think there are other things that the film makers might be charged with (if movies are correct "Inciting a riot" is a specific charge that they may be liable for under the law.) What I'm saying is if the law says it's illegal to try and incite violence, it sounds like they violated that law, since it sounds like they did try to incite violence. We can argue about whether or not we should even have a law that says you can't incite violence, but as long as that law exists, it sounds like they violated it.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I do understand what you are saying, it just bugs me that they are trying to go after the film makers at all. It would be like saying because a woman dressed provocatively she deserved to be raped. It would not matter what she was wearing, the person who raped her is still 100% responsible and to say it was the woman's fault because of how she dressed is HUGELY insulting.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

However, I think there are other things that the film makers might be charged with (if movies are correct "Inciting a riot" is a specific charge that they may be liable for under the law.) What I'm saying is if the law says it's illegal to try and incite violence, it sounds like they violated that law, since it sounds like they did try to incite violence. We can argue about whether or not we should even have a law that says you can't incite violence, but as long as that law exists, it sounds like they violated it.

I don't think you can charge them with inciting a riot unless the film encouraged them to riot. The film itself didn't encourage them to commit violence that was their reaction to it. I think to qualify as inciting violence you would have to tell people in the film to do something violent.

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

I actually find it hard to see any reason that this movie could be considered anywhere near the level of inciting riots. I am really disturbed that the filmmaker is being questioned by the FBI.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I don't think you can charge them with inciting a riot unless the film encouraged them to riot. The film itself didn't encourage them to commit violence that was their reaction to it. I think to qualify as inciting violence you would have to tell people in the film to do something violent.

According to the article posted, it doesn't have to actually tell them to riot, if the intent is to cause a riot.

Finally, much 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerns speech explicitly advocating violence, such as calls to resist arrest, or videos explaining bomb-making techniques. But words don't have to urge people to commit violence in order to be subject to limits, says Lewis. "If the result is violence, and that violence was intended, then it meets the standard."

Indeed, Justice Holmes' original example, shouting "fire" in a theater, is not a call to arms.

I'm not an expert on the law, so I can only assume this article is true. However, I would say that making the movie, dubbing it in Arabic, and sending it to the Arab news stations is pretty close to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with the intended purpose of causing chaos.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

According to the article posted, it doesn't have to actually tell them to riot, if the intent is to cause a riot.

I'm not an expert on the law, so I can only assume this article is true. However, I would say that making the movie, dubbing it in Arabic, and sending it to the Arab news stations is pretty close to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with the intended purpose of causing chaos.

Did it cause violence in the U.S.? How can you apply laws in the U.S. based on things that didn't even happen in this country?

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

According to the article posted, it doesn't have to actually tell them to riot, if the intent is to cause a riot.

I'm not an expert on the law, so I can only assume this article is true. However, I would say that making the movie, dubbing it in Arabic, and sending it to the Arab news stations is pretty close to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater with the intended purpose of causing chaos.

Agreed. One of the tests for prohibited speech is likelihood, as stated in the article. What was the likelihood that releasing the video immediately prior to Sept 11th would incite violence?

...only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Did it cause violence in the U.S.? How can you apply laws in the U.S. based on things that didn't even happen in this country?

Has it caused violence in the US? I'd like to know. If it hasn't already I would be shocked if it didn't. It's not like radical Muslims haven't terrorized Americans on US soil before.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

The embassy is considered US property. The same applies to every embassy in every country. Criminal acts on embassy property are subject to the same laws and judiciary as if they were perpetrated in the embassy's home country.

Agreed. Also, the actions taken to incite violence (making the movie, sending it to Arabic news stations) were done on American soil by Americans, so I assume that they would still fall under US law.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

How can you blame the idiot that made the video? Yes, it was stupid, but he had every right to say whatever he wanted. Since when is it illegal to speak against Islam, but perfectly fine for anyone and everyone to curse Christianity? Christianity is so forbidden it has to be taken out of every public place, but heaven forbid you say anything against Muslims because it might hurt they feelings and make them throw a temper tantrum.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Agreed. Also, the actions taken to incite violence (making the movie, sending it to Arabic news stations) were done on American soil by Americans, so I assume that they would still fall under US law.

That is right. The law the protects Americans to have the right to free speech and the right to not have to like a particular religion. Not the other countries laws saying that everyone must be Muslim.

This is what has caused me to disdain how Obama handled the situation so much. He is putting the rights and wants of another country above the rights of Americans.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I agree with Bonita. Why on Earth are we going to pretend like this video is any worse than the millions of offensive videos ever made? Because there is one group (albeit a large one)of people who react violently to being offended? I call Bull****. That is not what our country is about. If we allow *any* govenrment including our own to prosecute them and inact the punishment on them for the reaction this video received, we fail as a country.

It doesn't/didn't cause violence. The people being violent cause violence.

eta-So if I said "Hit me" to someone and they did so (under the other logic) than it would be my fault if someone actually hit me because I incited the violence?

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

That is right. The law the protects Americans to have the right to free speech and the right to not have to like a particular religion. Not the other countries laws saying that everyone must be Muslim.

This is what has caused me to disdain how Obama handled the situation so much. He is putting the rights and wants of another country above the rights of Americans.

It is US law that says freedom of speech does not protect you if you are inciting violence. I'm not arguing that the film makers should be turned over to Egypt to face their laws, I'm saying that I think they violated US law. Again, you can argue whether that *should* be the law in the US, that might make an interesting debate. But from what I can tell from the article, that currently *is* the law, and it sounds like they violated it.

Bonita, I asked you about Obama's response in another thread, but then realized I didn't want to derail that thread so I didn't go into it with you. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you think is so bad about his response. He condemns, unequivically, the violence in Egypt. I don't know what else you expect him to say!

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

It is US law that says freedom of speech does not protect you if you are inciting violence. I'm not arguing that the film makers should be turned over to Egypt to face their laws, I'm saying that I think they violated US law. Again, you can argue whether that *should* be the law in the US, that might make an interesting debate. But from what I can tell from the article, that currently *is* the law, and it sounds like they violated it.

It is questionable if the violence is even related to the movie. Seems awful coincidental that it happend on 9/11 don't you think?

Blame the movie.

Blame the movie.

Blame the movie.

Even though "the movie" was on YouTube for months prior to the collective indignation of thousands of Middle Eastern Islamists all coming together on the eleventh anniversary of September 11th (through a wild coincidence, no doubt), we are being told by our government and our media overlords that we must blame the movie.

You see, if we blame the movie for the burning of our foreign outposts and the brutal murders of four Americans (including our Libyan ambassador who was reportedly raped), we won't blame the burners and the looters and the murderers and the rapists.

You see, if we blame the movie for the Middle East burning, we won't blame the Islamists who are doing the burning and looting and raping and murdering.

Which means we won't further connect the dots and blame Obama's failed Middle East policy; the Obama Doctrine of backing away from the region and allowing events to unfold as America stands idly by -- as the Islamists in the Muslim Brotherhood grab hold of power in Egypt, a country that was once our largest and closest ally.

Blame the filmmaker.

Hunt him.

Out him.

Demonize him.

Anti-Islam Filmmaker Donated Million Dollars To Obama Campaign

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

It is questionable if the violence is even related to the movie. Seems awful coincidental that it happend on 9/11 don't you think?

Anti-Islam Filmmaker Donated Million Dollars To Obama Campaign

One of the articles I read said that they (the film makers) specifically sent the link around 911 on purpose. So it's not really that big of a coincidence.

Look, again, it's not like I'm saying that the Arabs that did the rioting and killing are not to blame for their own actions, because of course they are. They did it, they are responsible for it. Totally on the same page on that. I'm just saying that I think there can be more than one party who acted in the wrong (even to the point of breaking the law) in any given scenario, and it sounds to me, based on what I read in the article in the OP, that the film makers also broke US law. It's not either/or in my mind, like either the rioters are in the wrong OR the film makers are in the wrong. Legally speaking, I think they're both in the wrong, although the rioters are way more in the wrong than the film makers.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

One of the articles I read said that they (the film makers) specifically sent the link around 911 on purpose. So it's not really that big of a coincidence.

Look, again, it's not like I'm saying that the Arabs that did the rioting and killing are not to blame for their own actions, because of course they are. They did it, they are responsible for it. Totally on the same page on that. I'm just saying that I think there can be more than one party who acted in the wrong (even to the point of breaking the law) in any given scenario, and it sounds to me, based on what I read in the article in the OP, that the film makers also broke US law. It's not either/or in my mind, like either the rioters are in the wrong OR the film makers are in the wrong. Legally speaking, I think they're both in the wrong, although the rioters are way more in the wrong than the film makers.

So do you think they should stop filmmakers from releasing the movie about killing Bin Laden? That is sure to cause violence.

White House Must Stop Sony from Releasing 'Killing bin Laden' Film

Not to mention that there were other reasons for the attack that had nothing to do with the movie.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981637081

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So do you think they should stop filmmakers from releasing the movie about killing Bin Laden? That is sure to cause violence.

White House Must Stop Sony from Releasing 'Killing bin Laden' Film

I definitely don't think they should intentionally dub it in Arabic and then send a copy to the Arab news stations! Smile I think for me, that was the part that crossed the line. Like if they had just made the movie and then someone in Egypt got a hold of it and started rioting, I would say the film makers are just expressing themselves and if Muslims don't like it, they don't have to watch it. It was the deliberately dubbing it in Arabic and sending it to them to make sure they saw it to try to provoke a reaction that really makes me think that they were kind of in the wrong too. Total sh!t-stirring, you know?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I definitely don't think they should intentionally dub it in Arabic and then send a copy to the Arab news stations! Smile I think for me, that was the part that crossed the line. Like if they had just made the movie and then someone in Egypt got a hold of it and started rioting, I would say the film makers are just expressing themselves and if Muslims don't like it, they don't have to watch it. It was the deliberately dubbing it in Arabic and sending it to them to make sure they saw it to try to provoke a reaction that really makes me think that they were kind of in the wrong too. Total sh!t-stirring, you know?

So in that case who crossed the line? The film makers or the Arab news stations that ran it?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Bonita, I asked you about Obama's response in another thread, but then realized I didn't want to derail that thread so I didn't go into it with you. For the life of me, I can't figure out what you think is so bad about his response. He condemns, unequivically, the violence in Egypt. I don't know what else you expect him to say!

It was that his response to the video was so much stronger than to what actually happened. He used much stronger language condemning free speech, than he did the killing of Americans.

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

I definitely don't think they should intentionally dub it in Arabic and then send a copy to the Arab news stations! Smile I think for me, that was the part that crossed the line. Like if they had just made the movie and then someone in Egypt got a hold of it and started rioting, I would say the film makers are just expressing themselves and if Muslims don't like it, they don't have to watch it. It was the deliberately dubbing it in Arabic and sending it to them to make sure they saw it to try to provoke a reaction that really makes me think that they were kind of in the wrong too. Total sh!t-stirring, you know?

I disagree. If you as an Atheist were to tell someone that Jesus is not real and that I am foolish to believe in him, even if you took a painting of Jesus and peed on it, I might be offended but I would not start booming random people. Neither would anyone try arresting you for doing it. It happens all the time. There is no difference. The only difference is that Muslims are less tolerant, and the current US government is willing to bend over backwards trying not to make those people upset. The people making the video did nothing more insulting than others do against Christianity on a daily basis. It is not inciting a riot. The people rioting are inciting a riot.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So in that case who crossed the line? The film makers or the Arab news stations that ran it?

I would say that the guys that were doing the sh!t stirring in the first place were crossing the ones that crossed the line, IMO.

To give an example, I know that an easy way to make you mad is to tell you that Jenny (who you don't like anyway) said X about you, so I tell you that Jenny said X about you, and you go beat up Jenny. Of course you're in the wrong for beating up Jenny because violence isn't the answer, even though she said something mean about you. But I'm still not the good guy in this scenario because I meant for you to get mad at Jenny and beat her up, and I took action to try to provoke it. It's sh!t stirring, and I think it's crappy.

Bonita - Obama's reaction to the riots was to condemn the violence and say that there is no excuse for it. It didn't sound soft to me at all. :shrug:

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

To give an example, I know that an easy way to make you mad is to tell you that Jenny (who you don't like anyway) said X about you, so I tell you that Jenny said X about you, and you go beat up Jenny. Of course you're in the wrong for beating up Jenny because violence isn't the answer, even though she said something mean about you. But I'm still not the good guy in this scenario because I meant for you to get mad at Jenny and beat her up, and I took action to try to provoke it. It's sh!t stirring, and I think it's crappy.

In that scenario it wouldn't be the filmmakers that crossed the line then. Jenny would be the filmmaker. She said X. You are the one who transmitted that information. The Arab news station.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

To give an example, I know that an easy way to make you mad is to tell you that Jenny (who you don't like anyway) said X about you, so I tell you that Jenny said X about you, and you go beat up Jenny. Of course you're in the wrong for beating up Jenny because violence isn't the answer, even though she said something mean about you. But I'm still not the good guy in this scenario because I meant for you to get mad at Jenny and beat her up, and I took action to try to provoke it. It's sh!t stirring, and I think it's crappy.

No one is asking if the makers of the film are "good guys", but if they are legally liable. I will say it was a jerky thing to do (same as in your example) but not worthy of being detained or arrested, or told you can not make the video.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

In that scenario it wouldn't be the filmmakers that crossed the line then. Jenny would be the filmmaker. She said X. You are the one who transmitted that information. The Arab news station.

It's not a perfect example, but okay, if Jenny says X to you to specifically try to get you to beat her up to prove the point that you're crazy....

I don't blame the Arab media for reporting the news. That's their job, to report the news. Our media would do the same. The film makers went to the Arab media specifically to get the word out.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Really? A video on youtube is "news" that needs to be reported? If we're going to place the blame on anyone other than the people who are actually to blame, I'd say it'd be a 50/50 split. The media didn't have to "report" it anymore than the filmmaker had to make it. Our media would have done the same. And if anyone had rioted or killed anyone because of a "news" story, their asses would have been shot and/or jailed and then tried in a court of law.

Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 680

I haven't had a chance to think about this one yet, but one question comes in my mind: what would happen to xyz filmmaker if they make a movie depicting Judaism in negative manners?

mom3girls's picture
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1535

It is all very scarey to me that anyone would even contemplate that this could be illegal in our country.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

Really? A video on youtube is "news" that needs to be reported? If we're going to place the blame on anyone other than the people who are actually to blame, I'd say it'd be a 50/50 split. The media didn't have to "report" it anymore than the filmmaker had to make it. Our media would have done the same. And if anyone had rioted or killed anyone because of a "news" story, their asses would have been shot and/or jailed and then tried in a court of law.

Yes, exactly, our media would have done the same. We gets tons of news stories that really don't have any impact on our lives, but serve as human interest, or get people interested or offended. That's what the media does. I still say that the people that brought it to the media's attention in the first place (knowing that's what the media does) (also the same people who made it and dubbed it in Arabic) were the ones looking for trouble. Even their statements about it (limited though they are at this point) indicate they were looking to stir up trouble.

I think the rioters in Egypt should absolutely be brought to justice. It's not like I think they should get a get out of jail free card because they were offended. Give me a break! Everyone out there rioting over a freaking Youtube video needs to grow the eff up and put on their big girl panties, and stop acting like a bunch a lunatics.

ALL I am doing is answering the OP about the film makers. From the OP, it sounds to me as if the film makers broke US law by intentionally trying to cause violence, and I think that when people break the law, unless there are really special extenuating circumstances, they have to pay the price for breaking the law.

To the question about making a negative film about Christianity or Judaism - I guess to me it depends on what they did with their film. If they (or these film makers) just made the film and had it out there for anyone to see, to me that is not inciting violence. If they took further action to make sure that Christians and Jews saw it in the attempt to whip them into a violent frenzy and it worked, I would say that according to the law as posted in the OP, they were breaking the law. And of course I think it is to the Christians and the Jews credits that they typically act like adults and turn the other cheek about stuff like that, absolutely.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"mom3girls" wrote:

It is all very scarey to me that anyone would even contemplate that this could be illegal in our country.

Sorry to terrify you. LOL I'm just trying to answer the debate question to the best of my ability based on my reading of the original article.

Do you think that free speech should be absolutely unlimited? Like the other example that the article gave is yelling fire in a crowded theater - should that be protected by free speech even if people get hurt/killed?

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX;8990454" wrote:

It is questionable if the violence is even related to the movie
. Seems awful coincidental that it happend on 9/11 don't you think?

Anti-Islam Filmmaker Donated Million Dollars To Obama Campaign

I agree with this. I don't think radical Muslims need much of a reason to riot against the US, kill a bunch of people (Muslims included), burn flags, etc. They use religion as an excuse, but I think for many religion plays no part in the violence.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Do you think that free speech should be absolutely unlimited? Like the other example that the article gave is yelling fire in a crowded theater - should that be protected by free speech even if people get hurt/killed?

I do not think this is the same at all. Calling fire in a crowded theatre the normal legal reaction would be to to leave the theatre. A more accurate illustration would be to go to a girl and say "You Sl*t"", and then the girl beats the snot out of you. What you did was maybe stupid, but it was not in any way illegal.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I do not think this is the same at all. Calling fire in a crowded theatre the normal legal reaction would be to to leave the theatre. A more accurate illustration would be to go to a girl and say "You Sl*t"", and then the girl beats the snot out of you. What you did was maybe stupid, but it was not in any way illegal.

But there's a test, Bonita. It needs to be determined if what was said was said with the intent of elliciting violence. If it is found likely that it was, then it is prohibited speech. The words don't have to even be particularly hateful, bigoted, racist, violent, etc. It isn't just the speaker and what the words are that are factors; it is the audience the words are targeted at as well.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Sorry to terrify you. LOL I'm just trying to answer the debate question to the best of my ability based on my reading of the original article.

Do you think that free speech should be absolutely unlimited? Like the other example that the article gave is yelling fire in a crowded theater - should that be protected by free speech even if people get hurt/killed?

Do we really want the govenrment to be able to prosecute people for things like that though? Seriously, we want them to try people in a court of law every time someone is suspected of causing trouble with words? The guy who yells fire in a crowded theater needs to get a layer because someone thought he did it to incite a riot? So we all get SO politically correct that people are going to wait until someone else screams fire so that htey don't have to worry about going through the court system just in case what they are seeing really isn't fire?

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I'm sorry but if what Westboro Baptist does is ruled as free speech I don't see how there is ANY way that this would not be ruled the same.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

But there's a test, Bonita. It needs to be determined if what was said was said with the intent of elliciting violence. If it is found likely that it was, then it is prohibited speech. The words don't have to even be particularly hateful, bigoted, racist, violent, etc. It isn't just the speaker and what the words are that are factors; it is the audience the words are targeted at as well.

So what you are doing is holding someone else responsible for someone else's actions. If someone offered you a cigarette (Saying you are of legal age), is it their fault they smoked? You did not force them or twist their arm. At some point you have to clam responsibility for your own actions. No matter how much they provoked someone, it is not their fault how someone else responded.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"wlillie" wrote:

Do we really want the govenrment to be able to prosecute people for things like that though? Seriously, we want them to try people in a court of law every time someone is suspected of causing trouble with words? The guy who yells fire in a crowded theater needs to get a layer because someone thought he did it to incite a riot? So we all get SO politically correct that people are going to wait until someone else screams fire so that htey don't have to worry about going through the court system just in case what they are seeing really isn't fire?

I thought it already WAS against the law (and prosecuted if it happens) to yell fire in a crowded theater with the intent of causing a panic because it's a public safety issue. (I don't think it is or should be against the law to yell fire if you think there actually *is* a fire; I think the point is that you can't do it with the intent of causing chaos and panic.)

Gloria, you make a great point about the Westboro Baptist church - I would definitely say that their demonstrations are at least likely to possibly cause violence, even if that is not their intent. I don't know what the answer is. I think it's like a lot of rights, it's like your fist ends where my face begins. Of course, sometimes the line between fist and face get blurred. LOL

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Yes, exactly, our media would have done the same. We gets tons of news stories that really don't have any impact on our lives, but serve as human interest, or get people interested or offended. That's what the media does. I still say that the people that brought it to the media's attention in the first place (knowing that's what the media does) (also the same people who made it and dubbed it in Arabic) were the ones looking for trouble. Even their statements about it (limited though they are at this point) indicate they were looking to stir up trouble.

No our media wouldn't have done the same. They censor stuff all the time, they even censored South Park. Who had more reason to whip up the people, this filmmaker, or the Muslim Brotherhood that has already planned an attack on the embassy for that day?

Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman, (the "Blind Sheikh") is serving a life sentence for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. A report shows that the protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was planned in advance and was actually about the release of the terrorist, who also belonged to an Egyptian militant group, Al Gama'a al Islamiyya, which was "accused of masterminding the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat."

The release of terrorist Sheikh Omar abdel Rahman has been a goal of newly elected Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, who has publicly vowed to ensure his freedom from prison. The Wall Street Journal reported that "His [Rahman] detention has become a cause c?l?bre among hard-line Salafi Islamists."

Apparently, the brother of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Zawahiri, tweeted that people should go to the embassy and "defend the prophet" on Monday. Not so ironically, al Zawahiri was imprisoned for his role in the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He has also been in the news lately promoting a "peace plan." This plan includes "U.S. to release all Islamist prisoners." As if! Another demand for the faux peace plan is the interestingly worded: "U.S. to end the war on Islam." Sounds like something Obama would say to the GOP. It is this author's fervent hope that nobody would consider this terrorist's fake peace offering.

Blind Sheikh: The Actual Cause of the Riots Was... | Gather

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I was thinking that as well. I do not think our media publishes any and everything. Take for instance, I did not see any pictures toppless of Princess Kate in the magazines here. I think they will not publish what they think they will be sued for.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No our media wouldn't have done the same. They censor stuff all the time, they even censored South Park.

What?!? Our media always publishes stuff for the sheer offense value of it! LOL

Every time you read a news story that says
"New study shows that the majority of people think X about (fill in the blank, Christians, atheists, the homeless, whatever)"
"Pastor says controversial thing about (fill in the blank, gays, atheists, Muslims)" "
Atheist group/Christian group/Muslim group/whoever wants to put a sign that says something you won't like"

as far as I can tell, the only point of those stories is to let you know what you should be offended about today. LMAO

It happens all. the. time.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

What?!? Our media always publishes stuff for the sheer offense value of it! LOL

Every time you read a news story that says
"New study shows that the majority of people think X about (fill in the blank, Christians, atheists, the homeless, whatever)"
"Pastor says controversial thing about (fill in the blank, gays, atheists, Muslims)" "
Atheist group/Christian group/Muslim group/whoever wants to put a sign that says something you won't like"

as far as I can tell, the only point of those stories is to let you know what you should be offended about today. LMAO

It happens all. the. time.

Why didn't they play this video then?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I am not saying they do not publish offensive stuff, they do. They also draw the line somewhere. If they thought it was going to cause riots, they would at least think twice before publishing it. If the person who sent to the media is found responsible, the media is also equally responsible for publishing it. One example I can think of is that if a child was abused, they might report on the story, but not publish the child's name or picture for their safety.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

Why didn't they play this video then?

No clue. Maybe they didn't deem it newsworthy, maybe they didn't even know about it until after the riots. All I'm saying is, our media totally does the same sort of "Here's what you should be offended by today" kind of reporting. I'm sure they don't report everything, but I'm equally sure they report on anything they think will get a lot of views and interest and talk.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

No clue. Maybe they didn't deem it newsworthy, maybe they didn't even know about it until after the riots. All I'm saying is, our media totally does the same sort of "Here's what you should be offended by today" kind of reporting. I'm sure they don't report everything, but I'm equally sure they report on anything they think will get a lot of views and interest and talk.

I'm positive that the news media would never run a video like this bashing someone's religion. They might report about it, but they would have never actually run it. They refused to show things like Daniel Pearl getting his head cut off. They censored out pictures of the man that got his face eaten. Even some of he stuff the media puts on the internet they have all these warnings.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

So what you are doing is holding someone else responsible for someone else's actions. If someone offered you a cigarette (Saying you are of legal age), is it their fault they smoked? You did not force them or twist their arm. At some point you have to clam responsibility for your own actions. No matter how much they provoked someone, it is not their fault how someone else responded.

You can't compare your example to a legal test (i.e. the likelihood being tested in a court). And yes, it does matter how much and in what manner you provoke someone. It can be determined to be the fault of the 'provoker' if what they did or said had a direct impact on the behaviour of the targeted audience.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"ClairesMommy" wrote:

You can't compare your example to a legal test (i.e. the likelihood being tested in a court). And yes, it does matter how much and in what manner you provoke someone. It can be determined to be the fault of the 'provoker' if what they did or said had a direct impact on the behaviour of the targeted audience.

Fightin' Words!

Interesting and brief run down on "fighting words" and "incitement" on Wiki.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Fightin' Words!

Interesting and brief run down on "fighting words" and "incitement" on Wiki.

I never knew that! I mean, I was familiar with the expression and even used it, but didn't know it was like, a real thing. Thanks for the link.

Pages