I don’t think this started with a WSJ story.
This is nice to see (people in Benghazi marching to condemn the violence):
Of course the Libyans know who did it, they live there. We haters who’ve become what we hate can only speculate. :rolleyes:
Thanks Whack-a-Mole, yes it is!
Maybe Martin Hyde will relent and let them live.
Extremists!
Really, so they have psychic cops?
No, we are condemning them for referring to the movie as an abuse of free speech, which is totally indefensible.
It is?
Wouldn’t secularization by definition reduce the power of any and all religions?
I’m not sure that we should try to achieve it the same way Stalin and Mao did in Russia and China.
Yeah most of the people on this board are HALLELUJAH shouting holly rollers.
Or are yout alking about the global population at large? If its the global population, it might have somethign to do with who is doing all the suicide bombing.
South korea had a constitution that looked almost excactly like the US constitution during the entire time it was subjected to a military dictatorship that massacred and tortured dissidents.
BTW, I just found out about what happened and I would like to point out that there is a "fighting words’ exception to free speech. Not saying that Terry Jones incited to violence but did he really not know that something like this could happen?
And WTF is up with Romney criticizing Obama over this? Its a little bit disgusting and I kinda liked Romney (just not the Republican party he would be beholden to)
Wait, what’s indefensible about it?
It’s not only defensible but commonplace to refer to the inappropriate use of a particular right as “abusing” that right. Nor does it suggest that abusing a right somehow invalidates that right or punitively deprives the abuser of that right.
I quote from Frederick Schauer’s Philosophical Quarterly (Jul 1981) article, “Can Rights Be Abused?”:
Seems to me that expressing vituperative religious bigotry is an inappropriate use of the right to free speech. Of course, I’m not trying to argue that such inappropriate uses, or abuses, ought to be censored or denied the general protections of free speech. Neither was the US Embassy in Cairo.
So what exactly was the problem with what they said?
It’s abundantly obvious that he doesn’t care.
Well, he thought this would be an easy opportunity to criticize Obama for “apologizing for America,” something the right loves to say about the left. It’s typically a low-impact piece of bullshit: the right loves it, the left hates it, it doesn’t mean anything in particular or sway any votes. But the whole thing went wrong because it turned out several Americans were being killed around the same time, so it became a dipshitty thing to say. Since the whole thing was pandering to the rabid right, Romney decided that he couldn’t afford to apologize, so he repeated the comment a few more times and he looks like an asshole who is trying to blame Obama and a tweet for the murders. It was sort of an assolish criticism in the first place since the “apology” came from the embassy in Cairo before any attacks as they were desperately trying to calm people down (I think it was posted on Twitter by a staffer), and Obama and Clinton repudiated some of the language and denounced the violence when they had a chance to weigh in. So Romney is sticking to the criticism based only on an earlier statement anyway and trying to pretend the whole thing hasn’t gone spectacularly wrong for him.
Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Arizona… but if you didn’t know that you’d be able to guess based on this comment) compares the statement from the Cairo embassy to a case where a judge told a rape victim she deserved it because of her clothes. That’s just what the Republican Party needs right now: a way to tie Romney’s clueless remarks about the violence in Libya to all the bizarre comments Republicans have made about rape in the last couple of months.
So you agree with the Embassy that the film maker was ‘abusing’ free speech? In what way?
(And BTW the White House also had a problem with that Embassy statement and later repudiated it in part.)
creeps into crowded, dark forum
“FIRE!!!”
Cite? I’m not claiming this is authoritative, but this map is at least an indication that that might not be true… (if there’s a list of world governments ranked by secularity, I couldn’t find it.)
And a crowd of Libyan militiamen mistake the exclamation for an order . . .
I of course cannot speak for Kimstu.
My opinion is that of course the guy who made the film had every right to do so. Full stop.
That said while I fully agree with a person’s right to speak their mind, no matter how foul or retarded it is, most people understand there are reasonable limits.
For instance if I go into a predominately black neighborhood in Chicago and start shouting “Niggers!” at the top of my lungs and get my ass kicked as a result will you be defending my right to free speech or be calling me a moron?
No question the people kicking my ass are wrong. No matter what hateful shit I spew the answer should not be violence. That said I doubt anyone would be surprised I got my ass kicked if I did that and I doubt I’d garner much sympathy.
Just because you can say a thing does not mean you should say a thing.
What is worse here is the person spouting the hateful speech has gone into hiding and others died as a result of his speech.
This in no way absolves the assholes in Libya who cannot understand the difference between one crank in over 300 million people and taking it out on people wholly innocent of anything to do with what he said.
Still, what you say has consequences. Yes, you are free to say whatever you like but that does not obviate the need for watching what you say and realizing the effects of what that speech may bring about.
These guys’ deaths are on the movie maker’s head (as well as the Libyans who did it). From what I have seen the movie maker is unrepentant. In my book that makes him a Grade-A asshole (so are the Libyans who staged the attack).
Free speech is all well and good but if you spew hateful shit be aware there are consequences.
Is there room for both?
ETA: actually shouting such things at the top of your lungs could already be covered under “disturbing the peace,” and so I wouldn’t defend it.
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.
Especially when you consider what really happened during the attacks on the Embassy in Libya:
Secretary of State Cliinton’s remarks on the attack -
*This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. **Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible. **
*
Still want to bomb the shit out of the whole country, Martin Hyde?