“Mo”- Crisis 2.0..

Dear citizen..

you are being played by both sides, (East and West), in a war on both “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression”. And yes these are non-exclusive but there is a subtle difference between these. The rights to both are none-the-less attributed as one and the same.

The recent events are a direct attack on the Obama administration and the rights of freedom of speech for US citizens. How he responds to this is the real measure of his character as a leader.

For example - the correct action is to refuse to give in to any pressures from mullahs and to instead redirect and spin the onus on the intolerance and unacceptable behaviours and violence of intolerant religions who espouse peace and tolerance.

Only then will they realise that the inalienable rights of citizens in the US and across the Western world are not negotiable, and we will not bow down to their intolerance. Only then, will they be encouraged not to react in such “childish” and “immature” manner in future?

Yet it’s not just about reacting to appease these fundamentalists, aside from regional political relationships, it is about internet restrictions to freedom of speech and freedom of expression - period?

I agree with you on the importance of free expression, and I try to practice it. I may hate the opinions that others express, but I affirm, and I will fight for, their right to express them.

I also agree with you on the right to self-defense. Under a threat, often there is no other viable option.

Having said this, I _do_ hate this movie and the racist spirit behind it, and I totally agree with Clinton.

Muhammad is one of the greatest persons in history, and hundreds of millions of persons live by his words, and respect him. The movie denigrates them all.

Back to freedom of expression and right to self-defense, _everyone_ has these rights. Too easy otherwise.

@Giulio

I can’t tell you how pleased I am with your firm support of Free Speech, including “deploarable” views…

Although I was about to puke when I heard Hillary’s “great religion” remarks, I will be fair, as she deserves some of the credit for the U.N. Council for Human Rights’ abandonment in 2011 of the “defamation-of-religion”- concept.

Re: “Muhammad is one of the greatest persons in history”

I don’t know about you, but a “great” person to me is not defined by the number of his /her followers. Come to think of it, I might argue for the exact opposite..

As for “denigration”, - I take it you are aware of the endemic persecution of Christians - among others.. - all over the Islamic world ? - Call this Egyptian Coptic film-maker any (denigrating..) names you want, but how about HIS right to self-defence ? - Do I have to remind you of your very own words:

“Under a threat, often there is no other viable option”.

Hi Giulio—

you say the movie is Racist, but the movie is about Religion, not Race.

Criticizing Race is unacceptable, but criticizing Religion is acceptable - right?

You also say that Muhammed is “great” but I am not sure what you mean. Hillary Clinton also used “great” to describe Islam, but Joern has pointed out that “great” has multiple meanings. Do you mean “great” as in famous, or “great” as intellectually wise, or “great” as in morally inspiring?

I am glad you agree that everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

Giulio -

By the way, the filmmaker is a Coptic Christian. Coptic Christians are 10% of the Egyptian population, an oppressed 8 million minority. The relentless Muslim attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt for decades has been left out of the recent discussion. 

I regard the ongoing persecution of Coptic Christians as an actual “great” crime, a situation that is far more vile than the silly little movie.

Coptic Christians are routinely massacred by Muslim mobs. This, IMO, is the true atrocity, not the film. Hillary Clinton should be talking about that, instead of amateur Los Angeles movies.

here’s a link to read, with numbers of dead people attached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts

here’s info on the Coptic Christian identity of the filmmaker:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/nakoula-basseley-nakoula-coptic-christian_n_1881693.html

I hope, naively, that this event will focus attention on the plight of Coptic Christians. They deserve sympathy and support, but it doesn’t seem like the US Secretary of State is going to provide it.

If we’re talking about Respecting Religion -
why can’t we ask the Muslims in Egypt to do the same -
by respecting the Coptic Christians?

Salman Rushdie re protection of freedom of speech, “we need to be braver”

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jakewallissimons/100181631/we-must-answer-rushdies-call-to-be-braver-the-only-alternative-is-abandoning-our-free-speech/

Re support for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is good news to see that all are in support here at IEET?

Thanks for the link CygnusX1 - it is nice to be in agreement with you.

@CygnusX1

Really great to have your support ! - and thanks for mentioning Rushdie, very appropriate indeed !

Ayan Hirsi Ali:

“It is a strange and bitter coincidence that the latest eruption of violent Islamic indignation takes place just as Salman Rushdie publishes his new book, “Joseph Anton: A Memoir”, about his life under the fatwa”.

@Joern re “Do I have to remind you of your very own words: “Under a threat, often there is no other viable option”.”

Yes, but without the racist lecture. The fact that we must protect ourselves does not mean that others don’t have their reasons, often equally valid as ours.

@CygnusX1 re “support for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, it is good news to see that all are in support here at IEET”

It is very good news indeed, if it is the case.

I wish to remind everyone, however, that “freedom of speech” becomes an empty tautology if it means “others should be free to say what I like.”

Real support for freedom of speech is “others should be free to say also what I don’t like.”

Free speech has an important limitation.  There is, and should not be protection of incitement to unlawful violence.  The man in the photo with the sign ‘behead those who insult Islam’ should be in jail.  The same applies to lynch mobs and extremists and terrorists of all flavours.

@ Giulio

It seems to me that you are the one handing out “lectures” here, so perhaps you could at least apply words correctly. Please take note of what Hank has already pointed out, apparently in vain:

This has nothing whatsoever to do with race, and everything to do with religion , - and, of course, free speech. This “racism meme” is highly unfortunate, and prevents any constructive debate, in my opinion at least.’

Here’s another quote: (George Orwell)

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”

Yeah, whatever. Feel free to tell people whatever you like. I will feel free not to listen to racist talk, and I am out of this thread. Have fun.

Much appreciate it Giulio, - have fun yourself : )

@ R Wordsworth Holt

We all agree that incitement to violence is where we should draw the line, but I don’t approve of locking up that man in the photo. As long as it is a general statement, i.e. not directed at someone in particular, - (Rushdie, for instance) - I see no problem with that, and I much prefer to get these sentiments out in the open for everyone to see.

I believe the first Amendment, as interpreted by the US Supreme Court, protects that kind of incitement, which does not present any immediate danger. - I support that 100 %, and I hope the Obama Administration will not be tempted to change that in the near future !

R Wordsworth Holt’s comment is important, and despite what I have stated, (and believe!), I myself do not, and will not, give a blank slate to incite to promotion of hatred, (termed hate speech). Yet it is how we deal with these issues which is crucial, and Joern states that he has no problem with the guy with the placard as extension in his belief in the protection of freedom of speech and expression. So how do we deal with this dilemma?

It is up to us all “to be braver”, (and deep down we all really know this already?) And use our own rights afforded in freedom of speech to voice disagreement and oppose the guy with the placard, for what is good for the goose is good for the gander? This is how we deal with this guy and his ignorance? The dilemma can only be resolved through interaction, communication, and concerted effort in debate, no matter how heated?

We cannot, and should not, just silence and lock people away for expressing their views, hoping that this changes anything at all? It’s just another case of not dealing adequately with the problem/dilemma and laziness in not facing our own responsibilities and also a failure in using our own integrity? Nor should we stand for violence practiced or promoted against persons/groups in the name of ideology?

Consider the following and ask “what is acceptable”, to protect rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression..

1. Hate directed towards nation, culture, peoples, race (material)
2. Hate directed towards beliefs, religions, ideologies (non-material)
3. Hate directed towards individuals
4. Expression of physical violence for support of any of the above

In a secular society, the rights and protections afforded to the individual should be paramount and placed above any nation, group, belief, religion or ideology?

By protecting the rights of the individual, including freedom from violence and persecution, (and even extended towards libertarian ideals of protection of property), the grounding for social contract, Human universal rights AND responsibilities can be promoted, until, globally, all peoples agree and concur as to what is minimum acceptable behaviour, (under UN charter of other), and as to what are the boundaries for freedom of speech, (ideally none in a future where everyone will have wisdom that words alone are not effective to harm any of us)?

Of course this is an ideal in itself, for no matter how many nations, individuals, or mass agreement there is to promote a “fair and just global society” and social contract, there will always be those that disagree - as it should be, ultimately, or there would be no room to question further, and no manoeuvre for progress and change, (Spartan ideology)?

Silencing dissent is NOT the future for social success and progress, (define progress?), and restriction to internet freedoms of expression, (Youtube), and free speech is NOT the answer for promotion of social well being or “healthy” Human expression or creativity?

The US already has these protections, and they should stick with it, and we all should get on board - globally! However, they also seem to be shying away from their own ideals and responsibilities afforded under their own constitution?

An example..

Obama wins right to indefinitely detain Americans under NDAA

“A lone appeals judge bowed down to the Obama administration late Monday and reauthorized the White House’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or due process.”

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-lohier-ndaa-stay-414/

Freedom of expression is an area which will require even further contemplation and argument concerning individualism, trans-humanism, and expression of “freedom” as ideology. As they say, Freedom is not free - we have to work for it, and work to keep it - and always be vigilant?

 

At the risk of further raising your blood pressure, I don’t see Free Speech as the same kind of inalienable right as you do. I would go so far as to question what inalienable means in this context. I would be interested in serious studies that compare the value of unfettered free speech with the kind of limited free speech that would ban hate speech against an identifiable group.

I am not sympathizing with the Islamic folks who don’t realize that someone who doesn’t share their faith in incapable of blasphemy. Heresy and blasphemy are only possible from within the faith group. To talk about infidels being blasphemous makes as much sense as complaining that monkeys or rats are blasphemous.

My problem with unfettered free speech is that we don’t demand any critical or moral thinking of the person doing the speaking. All utterances are equal whether they are true or not, helpful or not.
The U.S. allows Westboro Baptist to continue their ‘protests’ in spite of the fact that they are lying, causing pain and division, and tearing down the community.

I can’t think of any parent who would not correct their child under similar circumstances, yet we reel back in horror at the thought of telling an adult that their speech is damaging and they need to stop.

I’d like to see a Responsible Speech law under which people who are challenged would have to demonstrate the accuracy, need, and positive result of their speech to an impartial jury. It is time we as a species started taking responsibility for the garbage that comes out of our mouths. The only way that will happen is if someone literally or metaphorically washes our mouths out with soap.

@Pastor_Alex

I can only speak for myself, but your comments had no effect on my blood-pressure : )  - probably because you are such a nice person, and you come across as someone who takes Buddhist Right Speech seriously !

- and let me state this very clearly: Although you could call me a Free Speech “fundamentalist”, I find Buddhist Right Speech a noble “strategy” !

However, - and this is crucial: It should not - and cannot - be obligatory, and here I am not talking about IEET policy, but society at large. I believe in teaching by example, i.e. being a decent role-model, not oldfashioned, (e.g. Christian..) “correcting” your children. How often will parents not “correct” children for foul language, while “happily” using such language themselves. Children, - like the rest of us - learn less from what we say, more from our actual behaviors.

I am VERY pleased with your mention of “serious studies”. It is the most constructive remark I’ve seen yet, and it is where this debate could become truly academic, rather than.. well, - you know what I mean..

So, - as a modest contribution, - allow me to quote from my article “Crimethink”, - the legacy of Totalitariansim:

According to a report from the “Speech, Power, Violence Seminar” -

http://www.ushmm.org/genocide/spv/pdf/summary.pdf -

convened by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in February 2009, There is no direct, incontrovertible evidence linking hate speech or propaganda to violence.

The simple truth, which should be apparent to all rational minds, is that it is impossible to reduce or eliminate bigotry simply by banning it. All it does is letting the sentiments fester underground, and any psychologist will tell you how potentially dangerous that is. As Kenan Malik puts it:

“Hate speech restriction is a means not of tackling bigotry but of rebranding certain, often obnoxious, ideas or arguments as immoral. It is a way of making certain ideas illegitimate without bothering politically to challenge them”.

At the risk of stating the obvious, hatred, and hate speech is not equivalent to threats of violence.  Free speech protects the former and the law protects against the latter. 

In response to Joern Pallensen…

Most people do not arrive at their beliefs from the ground up, they have a gut reaction, make an emotional commitment and retroactively construct justifications.  This has consequences when considering the proper response to ideologies of hatred.  Robust rebuttal of the ideas and arguments of bigots is important but   branding ideologies as obnoxious, immoral and illegitimate is, in my opinion, necessary and proper.  It is misguided and dangerous to think of ideological struggle as a debate when violence is in the picture.  Dangerous ideologues only care about convincing others of the rightness of their views as a means to a very unpleasant end. 

“Joern has pointed out that ‘great’ has multiple meanings. Do you mean ‘great’ as in famous, or ‘great’ as intellectually wise, or ‘great’ as in morally inspiring?”

Or perhaps casualties?
Alexander the Great killed, injured x number;
Charles the Great (Charlemagne) killed, injured x number;
Genghis [universal] Khan…
Peter the Great ...
Catherine the Great…

 

@Intomorrow

“Great” comment ))  - Made my day!

@R Wordsworth Holt

Re: “Dangerous ideologues only care about convincing others of the rightness of their views as a means to a very unpleasant end”

Well said ! - and I also agree with your other points. The 20 million dollar question is, however, how best to deal with said ideologies, and personally I am convinced that curtailment of free speech is counter-productive.
My article “Crimethink - the legacy of Totalitarianism” -

http://ieet.org/index.php/S=a878b269ca6c87b7fcc5464e1598ed18f845b3ca/IEET/more/pallensen20120502

- gives a few arguments in support of this, but as Pastor_Alex says, we need more serious research.

There is of course another problem: ‘Who decides which “ideologies” - (e.g. Islam…) - are dangerous and which not, - (e.g. socialism.. ?!). -

Another reason why I resent BigBrother / Mother !

@Joern Pallensen

your link took me to a post about the North American Basic Income Guarantee program :(

 

You mean to say there is such a program in the US.. : )

This should work:

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pallensen20120502

I notice no-one had the “courage” to reflect on my question above, (unsurprising). Most folks talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. Hypocrisy is a human trait, and it is much easier to see this in others rather than reflect upon our own?

In reality the individual decides using their own integrity as to whether they place themselves in harms way to protect “freedom of speech”?

and here’s another question.. What price unity? (Universalism)

@CygnusX1

It is true that no-one has adressed your questions directly, but indirectly then, we have, wouldn’t you say.., and I sense no lack of courage here, quite the opposite, as everyone is being very eloquent.

For my part, I believe I have stated my case carefully, especially in my “Crimethink”-article, that I’ve referred to already, but I will gladly repeat myself, and gladly through you, with whom I have detected no disagreement.. , so I have simply deleted your question-marks, and my hope is that this will indeed be the position of transhumanists :

“Silencing dissent is NOT the future for social success and progress, ... and restriction to internet freedoms of expression, (Youtube), and free speech is NOT the answer for promotion of social well being or “healthy” Human expression or creativity”

I also share your concern about the US “shying away from their own ideals”, which is why my article concludes with:

“If the U.S. follows the example of Europe over the last two decades, it will bend over backward to avoid further offense.
And that would be a grave mistake — for the West - no less than for those Muslims struggling to build a brighter future”.

Joern..

I was referring to this question..

“Consider the following and ask “what is acceptable”, to protect rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression..

1. Hate directed towards nation, culture, peoples, race (material)
2. Hate directed towards beliefs, religions, ideologies (non-material)
3. Hate directed towards individuals
4. Expression of physical violence for support of any of the above”

Hopefully all have indeed reflected on this.. but notice no-one mentions/sees any contradiction, (and unless one is a saint, there must be contraction in the above?)

As you know, my extensive use of question marks is to promote reflection and debate rather than merely stating my opinions as fact? I welcome your restatement of my quote without the question mark, and approval :0]

Most understand my extensive use of question marks, hopefully?

We agree on much, and only disagree on “level” of application as this whole argument once again cannot be reduced to either/or scenario.

Yet my comments still stand regarding my belief in freedom of speech and freedom of expression, (in other words I see no contradiction in myself - maybe precisely because feelings and emotion still do play a major role in our internal ethical illusionary/delusionary Self makeup as R Wordsworth Holt indicates)?

There is a trade-off always at someplace and at sometime and at some level?

hence..

“and here’s another question.. What price unity? (Universalism)”

Hate and ignorance all begins and ends with the individual - the buck stops here<