Free speech test?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 60
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Free speech test?

  1. #1
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,442

    Default Free speech test?

    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  2. #2
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    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?
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    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
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,536

    Default

    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.

    ~Bonita~

  5. #5
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    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! 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.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  6. #6
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,536

    Default

    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?

    ~Bonita~

  7. #7
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    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.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  8. #8
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,536

    Default

    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.

    ~Bonita~

  9. #9
    Posting Addict GloriaInTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    7,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    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.
    Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
    Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
    Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013


    I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson

  10. #10
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    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.
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions