Cartoon removed 2 yrs from air date after fear muslims would attack

There is a real story here and real concern about stone age religion leading to modern censorship. Too bad the trolls keep overstating and over-spinning causing many to lose focus on what is actually a fair argument/point.

 

do you know what Quran order Muslims to do if someone mocked their religion !

Well..".do not set with them until they change the conversation "

shocking I know .., now HB...did you get your pony !

 

What?

 

after a rehearsal:

Do you know what is the Quran's order to those Muslims who encountered an incident in which Islam is represented intentionally in an inappropriate way.

.....


Is it Better now ATW,did you get it, you are a time consuming if I have to reexplain everything.,while I work on my typo ,you should work on your comprehension
.! BTW...did you get you pony!

 

What?

 

Spoiler

 

I don't have a big problem with this, so long as you're willing to say the same thing if it wasn't Muslims but some other religious group being insulted. Having a double-standard is really the main thing I would disagree with.

I don't have a big problem with this either. Though I'm not sure what you're referring to by indirectly coerce. I wouldn't, for example, think an organized boycott or protests would be warranted over something like this, though they are technically "free" to do it.

 

I mean the combination of paid lobbyists organizing outrage on social media and on the streets with the fact that in the recent past, cartoonists have been brutally murdered in the name of Islam. Before these murders, there was the outrage on social media and on the streets, instigated by Islam lobbyists and Imams. Note that after "Friday prayers", the outrage always reached a peak, so it is very clear that the "us vs. them" and "we are victims and need to "defend Islam"" mentality gets fostered in mosques.

Guess what, when the outrage campaigns by Muslim lobbyists start, do you think that the people at Channel 5 didn't get worried, after Charlie Hebdo?

Again, they didn't even need to threaten violence in this particular case - organizing the outrage is enough of a threat, considering that that is how it started with Charlie Hebdo and in other cases.

You need to look at things in context, not as isolated cases - it's an ongoing fight against freedom of speech by Islamic instigators, under the guise of having to "defend Islam".

 

I don't have a double standard.

Everyone, regardless of which religion or affiliation, should shut the hell up and take it if someone makes fun of them in a cartoon. They may not like it, but they shouldn't organize outrage campaigns and they should obviously not hope someone has to live in fear for the rest of his life over a cartoon, and they should most definitely not actually murder someone.

The double standard is not from me - it's just that what I just described above is only done by Muslims, and for the most ridiculous things. It's not even that someone called their cult ideology the piece of crap death cult it really is in a cartoon. It's that someone drew their prophet (which is only forbidden to THEM, according to some interpretations, but they try to force THEIR rules on everyone else!) or even, like here, that a page from their little stupid book from hundreds of years ago is shown for like a split second in a freaking cartoon.

 

I would agree that people in a position of influence in the Muslim community should use extra discretion when expressing strident disapproval over perceived insults on social media, even if they are legally entitled to do so, because there are terrorists looking for any excuse to kill people. So, on that basis, I get your point regarding this lobbyist.

For the same reason (not giving Muslim terrorists more excuses for committing murder), I would hope that people who have an urge to publicly insult Muslims just for the sake of insulting them would show some more restraint. By all means, critique stupid, backward, anti-modern beliefs. Fair game, in my book. But taunting without an interesting idea behind it or, at the very least, without something that's funny/entertaining is pointless and it just adds to the climate of hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims without adding any benefit.

 

are you upset over a split of a second in a freaking cartoon!

just use your imagination for that missing part

,notice how easily you can solve your outrage

 

Are you talking to me or to the Muslim lobbyists who act like they are upset over the cartoon?

Because I am not upset about the cartoon, I'm upset about people using it to fight freedom of speech.

 

So you are saying that satire should not happen, and that one should "show restraint" to mock any religion? Or that Muslims and Islam should be treated with kid gloves compared to others?

So do you think Charlie Hebdo had it coming, because they "didn't show restraint" and "taunted without an interesting idea behind it"?

Here's a thought: Satire does not have to pass a test of "having an interesting idea behind it". It also doesn't have to pass an objective (or Muslim) "funny" test.

The test of the maturity of anyone is whether they can ignore "taunting" and get on with their lives. If they can't, something is wrong with them, not with the cartoonist or satirist.

I think you have got it wrong: Not the cartoonists need to change or show restraint. Those who always take offense need to learn to f-ing deal with it and get on with their f-ing lives.

These protests are instigated by people who try to force standards upon the rest of the world where they get special rights and always have to be treated with utmost care. These are not standards in Western civilizations which have fought long and hard to get freedom of speech, which includes the freedom to mock through satire. And this here wasn't even mocking.

Our "outrage" should be directed at the professional instigators on the Muslim side who try to rile people up who would have never cared about this cartoon. These instigators are on the side of intolerance. We have to stop them, not the cartoonists.

 

I think you are a strong supporter to abolish antisemitic laws !

speaking of cartoon, drawing a Jew controlling the world in early 1900s was just an innocent comical way to spread "judanhass"

 

working within the system is positive to me ,good little practice to function like any other politicly represented group. at least it prevent the crazies from taking over on these issues

Personally I distaste mocking Jesus ,Mouses or other religious figures , and I dislike how Muslims makes unknown cartoonist a celebrity overnight

 

There are two separate concepts here that should be distinguished:

(1) Having the right to do something,
(2) It being a socially responsible thing to do something

(1) applies to all free speech. That includes the good and the bad. It includes a funny, if controversial, South Park episode. It includes Charlie Hebdo, and the Danish cartoonist. It includes people voicing their outrage over twitter over something that is ultimately trivial because it offends them. It includes religious leaders organizing large-scale, peaceful protests for the same reason. It includes anti-religion groups organizing a "Let's insult Religion X" event in Dallas, TX. It does not include committing violence, making threats of violence, or purposely inciting others to commit violent acts. What qualifies as free speech is fairly cut and dry. Free speech means you're allowed to engage in it, and others can't use violence or threat of violence to prevent it. It is not a guarantor that you won't get a bunch of angry mails, or a mob of people protesting you, or potentially suffer through your business because of word of mouth -- all of which are equally protected by the same free speech laws.

(2) is much more subjective and debatable. It comes down to one's personal values and judgment and an assessment of benefits vs risks which is not always clear. People may also disagree over the degree to which something is socially responsible or irresponsible -- its gray, not black and white like (1). Suffice it to say, we agree that Islamic leaders/lobbyists should show restraint in getting their large number of Muslims followers on social media riled up over relatively trivial matters, especially given what all has been going on with lone-wolf attackers and ISIS. It's still "free speech", but just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean it is right to do it. I think we should apply this same principle to everyone and especially ourselves, but again its ultimately a subjective thing and a gray area, and reasonable people can disagree.

You asked about Charlie Hebdo. Let me put it this way. Consider the dire situation in Europe today: there's been an outbreak of lone-wolf attacks that have already occurred, and perhaps dozens (if not hundreds or more) people are likely laying in the weeds waiting for their opportunity to commit an act of terror. Given this environment, would it be a good thing for a publicly-circulated paper to purposely offend/disrespect Muslims just to make a statement of "I have a right to do this"? Is that a responsible thing to do, when people's lives are at stake?

 

America needs to turn into one giant nut sack!