I pit the statement from the US Embassy in Cairo

[Whack-a-Mole]

@aldiboronti

So we have free speech but we mustn’t be disrespectful to their holy guy in case some crazy Arabs kill someone and if they do it’s our fault? In effect you’re saying that all Americans should obey that part of sharia law which forbids mockery or even depiction of Mohammad. Just in case.

With great respect, bullshit.

No.

I’m surprised this needs to be explained.

If I start shouting hateful, horrible words at your wife/husband (if you don’t have one pretend you do for sake of argument) will you stand there and shrug deeming it my right to free speech or will you take action to defend her/him?

We ALL have the right to say what we want (within some moderate restrictions such as slander). That does not mean we spout whatever goofy shit crosses our mind.

Words have power and have an effect and ignoring that to suggest because we can say whatever we want it is somehow ok to say whatever we want is short sighted in the extreme. I am willing to bet you self-censor yourself on a near daily basis and moderate what you say from what is actually on your mind.

Make no mistake, Muslims (some of them at least) need to get a thicker skin and be more tolerant. Their beliefs are not universally shared and they have no right to impose their restrictions on someone else who does not agree with them.

That said the movie in question (I have watched some of it) is not fair comment or parody or comedy or anything other than a poorly made hateful smear. OF COURSE it is going to piss people off!

Yes, Muslims should have looked at it and blown it off for the bullshit it is. In any population of millions you are bound to find someone who you intensely dislike. Killing others because they share nothing more than a nationality with that person is flat out retarded.

With that in mind the person making that film is aiming to incite and he succeeded. He got people killed as a result.

Words have consequences and that should be considered before you speak.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Trinopus

Is there room for both?

Good point and yes.

[gamerunknown]

@Martin Hyde

Something Muhammad did regularly, as he married and raped a six year old child

@Kimstu

AFAIK there is no suggestion that she ever became pregnant, btw.

These statements do not need to be contradictory. If he were a paedophile, he may have lost interest in her at menarche. That said, most sources put the consummation at age 9 according to wiki.

[aldiboronti]

@Whack-a-Mole

That said the movie in question (I have watched some of it) is not fair comment or parody or comedy or anything other than a poorly made hateful smear. OF COURSE it is going to piss people off!

I’ve watched some of it too and it’s clearly played as comedy. OK, it isn’t funny, like Life of Brian drained of wit, but it is completely unremarkable and the people who made it are no more responsible for what fucking lunatic Arabs do than I am.

My field is 17th/18th century English literature. Believe me, that film has nothing on the way the ‘fraud’ Mohammad was dealt with by historians and polemicists back then. Should we burn all suck books in case a Muslim reads them? Say they start killing people because Western libraries refuse to get rid of such books? Are the librarians responsible for those deaths?

If we don’t defend the freedom of even the most idiotic and reckless of people to publish as they see fit (inside the law as it stands) then we are a far far poorer nation and I’m astonished you can’t see that.

[voltaire]

@Whack-a-Mole

My opinion is that of course the guy who made the film had every right to do so. Full stop.

Don’t be so sure:

Nakoula denied he had posed as Sam Bacile. Federal court papers filed in a 2010 criminal prosecution against him said Nakoula had used numerous aliases in the past. Among the fake names, the documents said, were Nicola Bacily and Erwin Salameh.
During a conversation outside his home, Nakoula offered his driver’s license to show his identity but kept his thumb over his middle name, Basseley. Records checks by the AP subsequently found that middle name as well as other connections to the Bacile persona.
The AP located Bacile after obtaining his cell phone number from Morris Sadek, a conservative Coptic Christian in the U.S. who had promoted the anti-Muslim film in recent days on his website. Egypt’s Christian Coptic populace has long decried what they describe as a history of discrimination and occasional violence from the country’s Arab majority.
<snip>
The Youtube account, “Sam Bacile,” which was used to publish excerpts of the provocative movie in July, was used to post comments online as recently as Tuesday, including this defense of the film written in Arabic: “It is a 100 percent American movie, you cows.”
Nakoula, who talked guardedly about his role, pleaded no contest in 2010 to federal bank fraud charges in California and was ordered to pay more than $790,000 in restitution. He was also sentenced to 21 months in federal prison and ordered not to use computers or the Internet for five years without approval from his probation officer.

**http://www.chron.com/news/article/California-man-confirms-role-in-anti-Islam-film-3860315.php
**

[Napkin_Sandwich]

@Alessan

Remember never to forget Rule One.

checks to see if Alessan is holding a broom

backs away slowly

[voltaire]

@aldiboronti

So you agree with the Embassy that the film maker was ‘abusing’ free speech? In what way?

In the same way Fred Phelps abuses his - to spread hate and generally troll society. Nobody’s saying they shouldn’t have freedom of speech, just that it’s our opinion that they abuse that right for their own ignorant and repugnant purposes.

[Kimstu]

@aldiboronti

So you agree with the Embassy that the film maker was ‘abusing’ free speech? In what way?

Yup. He abused free speech by deliberately promulgating religious bigotry in the form of a slanderous and offensive misrepresentation of a particular religion, in order to denigrate that religion (and, perhaps not incidentally, to generate resentment and conflict).

None of that should be taken as implying that the filmmaker in any way EXCEEDED his right of free speech, which seems to be the distinction that you’re struggling with here. To misuse or abuse a right is not the same thing as to overstep its boundaries or to forfeit its protection.

To quote Schauer again (and I might as well link to his article, although only readers with JSTOR access can see it):

[A]n abuse of a right must be at the same time an exercise of that right. When a speaker says that A has abused his right to x by engaging in conduct x1, the speaker appears to presuppose that A’s right to x1 was within the right to x. And if this is so, then A had the right to x1. But to punish A for x1 would seem to imply that there is no right to x1, and thus that A did not abuse a right at all, but merely went outside it.

Your mistaken belief that the Embassy statement somehow implies an acknowledgement of guilt on the part of our country, that the result of the violence is somehow “our fault” or at least the fault of the filmmaker, appears to stem from your mixing up the concepts of abusing a right and exceeding a right, as discussed in the Schauer article.

@aldiboronti

(And BTW the White House also had a problem with that Embassy statement and later repudiated it in part.)

As I pointed out all the way back in post 31 of this thread, the so-called “repudiation” or “disavowal” from the White House actually ended up making almost exactly the same point as the original statement from the Cairo Embassy did: namely, that the US rejects and deplores deliberate offensive denigration of religious beliefs, even as we firmly maintain that such denigration is protected by the universal right to free speech and that violence is an unacceptable response to it.

@aldiboronti

So we have free speech but we mustn’t be disrespectful to their holy guy in case some crazy Arabs kill someone and if they do it’s our fault?

No. We have free speech but we think it’s dickish to be disrespectful to somebody else’s holy guy. If some dick is disrespectful to somebody else’s holy guy and some other dicks kill someone in retaliation for it, that is the fault of the killer dicks and nobody else. However, the fact that the killer dicks bear full responsibility for murdering someone doesn’t mean that we’re not allowed to criticize the first dick for his dickish disrespect.

Somebody who deliberately insults and mischaracterizes the beliefs of others in order to whip up antagonism and spread misunderstanding is a dick, and a stupid dick. And I for one am perfectly happy to have official representatives of our nation publicly and officially disassociate our official national principles of conduct from his stupid dickishness (as long as it remains clear that his stupid dickishness is officially protected by the inalienable right to freedom of speech).

The right to free speech, as Der Trihs remarked in the concurrent GD thread, does not imply a right to freedom from criticism.

Nobody is claiming that the filmmaker exceeded his right to free speech or that he shouldn’t be allowed to be a stupid dick if he wants to. But by being a stupid dick in this way, he abused his right to free speech, and there’s nothing wrong with calling him on it.

[kwimby]

Why are you people still trying to delude yourselves into believing the current events WRT the U. S. missions in Libya, Egypt and Yemen has any substantial relationship to a movie or some religious prophet?

[Kimstu]

@kwimby

Why are you people still trying to delude yourselves into believing the current events WRT the U. S. missions in Libya, Egypt and Yemen has any substantial relationship to a movie or some religious prophet?

This thread isn’t fundamentally about whether those current events have any substantial relationship to a movie or to some religious prophet, so your sneering is somewhat misdirected.

It’s about whether making a movie insulting and denigrating some religious prophet can rightly be characterized by US officials as an “abuse” of the right to free speech.

And that issue, with your kind permission, is what we’ll go on arguing about in this thread as long as there’s any interest in doing so. If you want to have a discussion about the ulterior political motives of the various participants in the ongoing “Muhammad-movie-riots” incidents, there are plenty of other threads relevant to that topic.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Martin_Hyde

1. That was signed by that old slaver and monster, Thomas Jefferson, advocate of periodic violent revolution, nullification, and secession.

2. It’s spot on about Christianity, in the time that was written Christianity was still almost as much a scourge on humanity as Islam, and America’s government is not based on Christianity nor should religious differences cause wars with Muslim countries.

3. None of it applies to the modern age, in which Christianity is cowed and weak and Muslims wages war against the west because we say things that offend Muslims and don’t beat our women or rape children enough. (Something Muhammad did regularly, as he married and raped a six year old child.)

This sounds a lot like Der Thris.

[Der_Trihs]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

This sounds a lot like Der Thris.

I’ve said things fairly close to most of that before. However, I don’t go on to then say “therefore we should conquer the Muslims and force secularism on them at gunpoint”.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

@Der_Trihs

I’ve said things fairly close to most of that before. However, I don’t go on to then say “therefore we should conquer the Muslims and force secularism on them at gunpoint”.

That’s true. You haven’t been one to advocate violence that I’ve seen. I also disagree with the characterization of Jefferson as a monster. He was a man of his times…people with land and means owned slaves then. Doesn’t make it right, but there’s some historical context there.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@Martin_Hyde

We barely get any of our oil from OPEC these days

Oh aye?

America imported nearly 9 million barrels of oil per day last year, the majority of that from OPEC. 2011 was the first year in decades where you were net fuel exporters, but being a net exporter and being fuel independent are two extremely different things.

[Der_Trihs]

@FoieGrasIsEvil

I also disagree with the characterization of Jefferson as a monster. He was a man of his times…people with land and means owned slaves then.

And they were all monsters. Ruthless and brutal by definition; that’s the only way slavery can be enforced, through terror and violence. And no, “it was a different time, they didn’t know better” doesn’t work; they did know better. “All men are created equal”, remember? They violated their own principles to indulge in slavery.

[JohnT]

I’m sorry, Gary, but that’s incorrect:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

The last time the US got more oil from OPEC than non-OPEC sources was 1993.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@JohnT

I’m sorry, Gary, but that’s incorrect:

I acknowledge the correction and apologise for a poorly worded response. You imported the majority of your imported crude from OPEC and Persian Gulf states (Approximately 2.2 billion barrels of the 3.3 billion you import). OPEC on its own is not quite a majority of your annual crude imports (1.53 billion barrels, around 47%)

Considering Martin’s request to not deal with muslim states though, I am afraid that it’s still 2/3 of your crude imports you’re going to have to replace.

[kwimby]

@Kimstu

This thread isn’t fundamentally about whether those current events have any substantial relationship to a movie or to some religious prophet,…

Sorry you are having difficulty connecting the dots. Who needs an inane debate about free speech while our people are being killed in foreign countries by virtue of the TOPIC of religious intolerance? How it may or may not relate to free speech? You must be daft. People can characterize statements by U.S. officials or anyone else for that matter however they like, doesn’t mean a goddamn thing in the context of what started the whole fiasco. Even having the conversation only supports the thin veil of legitimacy given the terrorists and demonstrates your naive proclivity to accept the diversion.

Seems a bit sketchy to me.

But if you must, by all means, enjoy yourselves.

[Kimstu]

@kwimby

Who needs an inane debate about free speech while our people are being killed in foreign countries by virtue of the TOPIC of religious intolerance?

If you don’t think this pitting or the arguments it’s engendered are weighty enough to be worthy of your attention in a time of international political unrest, then by all means, feel free not to participate in the thread.

[QUOTE=kwimby]

But if you must, by all means, enjoy yourselves.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks. Good luck with whatever incredibly significant and far-reaching activities you’re undertaking to shepherd us through this time of international political unrest, such as gratuitously scolding random strangers on messageboards for not changing the subject of their discussions to the topic you consider most important.

[JohnT]

@Gary_Kumquat

I acknowledge the correction and apologise for a poorly worded response. You imported the majority of your imported crude from OPEC and Persian Gulf states (Approximately 2.2 billion barrels of the 3.3 billion you import). OPEC on its own is not quite a majority of your annual crude imports (1.53 billion barrels, around 47%)

Considering Martin’s request to not deal with muslim states though, I am afraid that it’s still 2/3 of your crude imports you’re going to have to replace.

True, but OPEC != “Muslim States”… at least as long as Ecuador and Venezuela (both very Catholic) remain in the cartel.

Your overall point stands, though.