U.S. ambassador, 3 American diplomats killed by protesters in Libya

Then we're basically in agreement. You shouldn't be "forced" to do so, and it shouldn't be a crime for you not to do so. I accept that. But, nevertheless, you still should use some discretion, given the audience and what may happen in the aftermath if you don't do so.

 

I don't really think we are very much in disagreement.

I don't advocate that just because there is free speech, one should not consider at all what effect it may have on people what one says. E.g., if thadeus makes tasteless jokes about esteban's deceased mother, thadeus might find it funny, but esteban might not.

The issue here is that because of the Internet, former barriers of communication are torn down and speech becomes globally available.

Now, something that might easily be considered free speech and humorous in one country might be considered incredibly offensive in other countries.

However, does that mean one country should lower its standards of what is allowed as free speech?

No - and I think that you and I are in agreement about this.

Next question, does this mean that people in the "free" country should hold back on something they would have otherwise never had a problem saying, that they should "self-censor" themselves from mocking or criticizing something they feel deserves to be mocked and criticized?

I guess that is where we differ - I don't think so, you seem to think so.

I don't think so because, again, otherwise you let the sensitivities of the most intolerant people in the world dictate what you feel you may say, even if you live in a "free" country.

There will ALWAYS be someone who will say something offensive about them. Eventually, it is THEM who need to realize that they need to increase their level of tolerance. If you kowtow to them and let them dictate what you can or cannot say, they push their level of intolerance through, worldwide.

That should not happen.

 

Granted, if it sounds like I'm calling for a sanction on free speech rights, then I should use a different word.

 

I agree with most of what you say, but again we live in a world filled with irrational people. Rational thought is a foreign concept.
Btw...
They now believe that the embassy attacks were premeditated to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11, and that they were too well organised to be 'spur of the moment' demonstrations. The film was a convenient foil to use as a scapegoat.

The perceived threat is real. In world war II you had the Judenrat, now we have the dhimmicrat leftist greenie.

They may be small in number, but they are venomous to the heart and lifeblood of any country.

 

What a wonderful depiction of the process of refining Republicans out of rubes.

 

so what you're saying is that fear is the fire that boils ignorance and distills hate???...

 

Edit: why bother...

 

You shouldn't, you would only be arguing against the truth. See my sig, that guy HATES and it is a direct result of his ignorance being distilled by the flames of fear.

 

It gets worse....

http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/PoliticalNews/ar-LB/usa-killed-lybia-zek-970.htm

Sources said that "the U.S. ambassador to Libya has been sexually raped before being killed by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)," The sources said that the "ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi....

http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/w...-report-murdered-us-ambassador-libya-reporte/

According to the Lebanese news organization Tayyar.org, citing AFP news sources, U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, who was killed by gunmen that stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on Tuesday, was reportedly raped before being murdered. A google translation of the report says :*



A news report made by the Libyan Free Press is also reporting that Ambassador Stevens was sodomized before he was killed:
"Libya - USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets"

 

I agree with this in principle and have defended free speech to the point of arguing for the right of the Westboro Baptist Church. That said it is rather naive to think that words don't result in violence.

Free speech is dangerous but that is the power of having free speech.

I agree and think that people should be allowed to spout whatever hateful ignorant crap they want. That said as a civil society though it must be recognized that free speech does carry consequences and while I am not advocating violence and am especially against government bans on free speech it needs to be recognized what possible consequences are out there from speech. I mean if free speech had no consequences there would be no reason to engage in it.

Further free speech goes both ways and as much it should allow people to spout hateful ignorant rhetoric it also allows for calling out and criticizing such hateful and ignorant rhetoric. I have no problem and fully agree that the makers of this movie (apparently the producer isn't an actual person but some sort of alias) should be called out for making a piece of crap and doing so willfully ignorant of the potential consequences of it.

Let me be clear so I this is not taken as an apology for the rioters. Their actions are wrong. It is one thing for them to peacefully protest this movie and another thing for them to be attacking our embassies. That shows that their society has a long way to go being a true civil society and also shows that they are ignorant themselves of the consequences of their actions to themselves, to their country and to their religion. It just gives more ammo to those who believe that Islam is all about violence and intolerance.

 

Of course - no objection to calling them out.

But I would not call them out for being "willfully ignorant of the potential consequences" of their speech. If you do that, you basically call them out for exercising their right to free speech and not self-censoring themselves, which is wrong.

If you want to call them out, call them out on the content of what they say - you can say "you are wrong, you are sending a hateful message", etc.

But you should not call them out for "being ignorant of the potential consequences", in my opinion, because free speech should not be inhibited by potential violence or threats of violence by lunatics.

 

I admit to not having all of the facts yet and will hold off saying anything definitive about the situation but this report doesn't seem to match the report from the doctor that treated Stevens. According to him Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Further I would question the veracity of a report that says "USA Ambassador in Bengazi sodomized and killed by his own al-Qaeda puppets" which seems like a highly questionable editorial statement.

Also I noticed at the Washtimes link it says at the top.
[rquoter]UPDATE 3:35 AM EST. - The Lebanon report on the murdered U.S. ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, remains unconfirmed by the AFP.

Read more: PICKET: UPDATE - Lebanon news rape report on murdered U.S. amb. in Libya remains unconfirmed by AFP - Washington Times http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/w...ed-us-ambassador-libya-reporte/#ixzz26MKE6h5T
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter[/rquoter]

 

I am calling them out for their exercise of free speech. That is one of the critical parts of free speech. I mean if I walk up to a group of Hells Angels hanging out on their bikes on the side of the road and yell "HELLS ANGELS SUCK DONKEY DICK!" that is me exercising my free speech in a legal and protected way. That doesn't mean though that there aren't going to be some severe consequences to me from the Hells Angels. Now I can say that it is wrong of the Hells Angels to be so touchy but that doesn't change the fact that I was either stupid or willfully ignorant of the fact that the Hells Angels might take some offense to what I said and show such offense with their fists.

How you exercise free speech is the one of the most critical parts of exercising free speech. Where you usually see bans on free speech has to do with how that speech is exercised. The classic example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre is about how that speech is exercised not about the content of the speech. Yelling "Fire!" in and of itself isn't considered harmful and in the situation of an actual fire is necessary.

In the case of this movie yes their content and their right to make this movie should be protected and not infringed but that doesn't mean in the type of geo-political environment that we have they should be aware that doing so has a consequences far beyond the US. Particularly since one of the people involved with the movie was the pastor that wanted to have a Quran burning and had been warned not to because of the potential consequences.

 

Spoilered because of N word.

Spoiler

LOL.

Anyway - so you are saying that if there is a threat of violence, one should not exercise one's right to free speech?

Do you see where this is going?

 

There are two possible dangers that I can see.

(1) Over time, it will lead to an actual, legal erosion of free speech rights. "Don't be mean to others about their religion" laws, or something like that. But I think there is a very clear line here that shouldn't be crossed.

(2) By choosing to insulate them from potentially offensive material, they will never learn how to react appropriately to it. They'll never really understand what free speech means -- that even if someone is saying something that offends you, they still have a right to say it. My response here is that it is important for people in these societies to understand the value of free speech rights, but there should be a better way to do this then to overtly insult what they consider to be sacred. Being overtly insulting and rude is simply counter-productive if the goal is to get them to understand the value of free speech.

 

No and you are over reading into my statement. I am saying people need to be aware of the consequences. As I said before it is naive to believe that speech doesn't lead to violence. It often does. MLK and Ghandi suffered violence because of their speech. They were fully aware of that and still engaged in their speech because they felt it was necessary. Not only that they counted on their speech arousing violence towards themselves.

I don't know what these guys with their movie hope to gain but would still protect their right to say it. That said they need to be aware that what they're saying has greater consequences than just a crappy movie meant to make Mohammed look bad.

 

Yes - but it's protected. Don't forget, it's not like the guy rented a movie theatre in Libya or Cairo to have a public showing of his crappy movie. He just uploaded it to Youtube, on American servers. He should be allowed to upload crappy movies to American servers, as long as they are protected speech. Not only should he be allowed to do so (which he is - and I have to applaud Google on its stance here to leave the video up, although I think they are inconsistent when it comes to copyright violations, then they take stuff down), we should not expect him not to do it, either.

 

Total free speech is bull**** -- emotional abuse is just as demeaning as a punch in the face. If some scrawny, but witty dude starts putting me down and he hurts my feelings I have the moral right to beat the **** out of him.

That church that hates **** should not have protection -- they should be target practice.

 

And it will piss you off even a lot more if a GERMAN does it .