Damn, that picture is chilling. I feel very sorry for this brave man, what happened to him is so unfair, he was trying to help these people and got killed for it. As to the article you posted: The writer of this article is making the same mistake as mc mark: The film does not "lead to bloodshed". The film is a random pretense for Islamists who are full of hate and want bloodshed. I doubt any of them even watched that film (which is so terrible that I couldn't get myself to watch more than 3 minutes of it). The writer of that article - like mc mark - does not understand the concept of causation. People who take to violence are responsible for their own actions. Saying the "film led to the violence" makes it seem like they had to react, which of course is ridiculous.
Free speech has consequences, and in the interest of preserving it, I think people should exercise some responsibility and promote more education on the topic. I think it is particularly dangerous that some people believe they do have total free speech already, thereby giving them the impression that it is always pure/good/safe. The reality is more complex and the reality is that people have somewhere between X % and 95% free speech depending on various circumstances. I doubt X is lower than 75 anywhere in the world. There is no country where you have 100%, not America not anywhere and that's for safety reasons. To protect against murder and extreme danger, some controls are in place everywhere. In other places, more controls are in place. In other places, unnecessary controls are in place for other purposes. Below a certain %, you get murder. Above a certain %, you get murder. There is no perfect formula, no perfect number. Same thing with general freedom, 100% of it is pure chaos, 0% of it is pure oppression. We're all looking for the highest non-chaotic %. The maximum. For people to still foolishly believe that 100% is the goal is problematic and childish. There will always need to be rules, laws, fines, speeding limits for as long as there is more than 1 person on earth. Any suggestions for how to deal with this problem of people being dead due to an unconnected rift between a speaker you don't know and a crazy violent person somewhere in your vicinity? Can we ignore seriously ignore this for our own selfish reasons? I could see the reasoning if this behavior did not lead to losing human lives, advanced the understanding of free speech, and led to enough friction to cause a debate. But this is clearly not happening, it is sending the free to the upper extreme of freedom and the oppressed to the lower extreme of freedom all the while sacrificing people who have no horse in the race. Things like this gives birth to more OBL's in the Middle East, and more Anders Breiviks in Europe. None of us want this. None of those guys want equality and freedom. Both of those guys are happy to engage in mass murder. So yes, you believe that the responsibility is 100% with the killers. Others believe the responsibility is 95% with the killers. Fine. This disagreement doesn't mean that we're not all searching for a solution to the same problem, it doesn't mean we don't all believe the killers should be prosecuted as killers, it doesn't mean we're not still trying to solve the agreed problem: history has shown that innocent people can unfairly be killed when someone else exercises hateful speech. How do we at least the reduce the likelihood of this occurring?
You know 0 % about free speech, Mathloom. You have demonstrated that time and again. You simply do not understand the concept - at all. Your post above proves this 100 %. Of course, that doesn't stop you from verbose rants.
Really? I don't? Seems like I had it spot-on: The scary part is that, from your comments, it seems like if you incited hatred which ended with terrorists killing someone else, you would shun your role in it completely. The really scary thing is that I am concurring with you that those freedoms should not be curtailed, rather the users should be advised to exercise some responsibility at their own discretion, and authorities should promote education on the topic - and you are furious about this!! For me at least, my freedom to say whatever I want does not trump the loss of life of another person who doesn't care what I think.
You don't. You simply do not grasp the concept. I am not furious. I just see that you are arguing along the same lines you did before, in the case of the Danish cartoonist (whom you wanted to live in fear for the rest of his life - because of a cartoon) and in the case of the South Park "outrage", etc. While this sounds oh-so-responsible at first sight, it is complete bullcrap - because you keep making the same logical leap/mistake you (and some others, like mc mark) constantly make: The loss of life of the other person is 100 % caused by the decision of a fanatical murderer to kill them. The loss of life is not caused by a cartoon, South Park episode, Youtube video. The intolerant ideology that drives the murderers is the root of the issue - not the free speech that criticizes that intolerant ideology, no matter how tasteless, offensive or badly made (in terms of quality) that free speech is. Yet, you keep pointing at the free speech as the "problem" - which shows that you have a problem - you do not understand how free speech works.
It's not the same case at all. No one is claiming that the film caused the death. We are talking about responsibility, which is a valid discussion since: film CAUSED outrage from extremists, then extremist outrage CAUSED murder film did not CAUSE murder It is not a direct cause, it is an indirect and possibly unintended cause. Free speech does include problems, like anything else. Free gun ownership has problems. This is a fact, acknowledged by the reality that free speech is controlled at various levels in every single country in the world. This you can't deny, especially given that your country has various controversial limits on free speech which you are well aware of. Where we differ on opinion is ONLY where you assign 0 responsibility to the person who indirectly and possibly unintentionally 'caused' the terrorists to 'cause' the murder of the diplomant. There is a link. You can take the position that the link should not lead to any sort of criticism or reprucussions. That's your OPINION. It is not a fact except so far as certain models of free speech, none of which offer 100% free speech. A death threat is free speech, and it is controlled because of the dangers associated with it. It does not infringe on another person's right to free speech. If there are extreme cases which require curtailing free speech then there is inevitably a grey area (even if we disagree where this grey area sits) where problems do exist. The only problem I see is your refusal to acknowledge that there is in fact a grey area. If your problem is that you believe people should not react this way to free speech, no one is disagreeing with you. If your problem is that you believe that the film did not directly cause the murder, no one is disagreeing with you. If your problem is that Islamic extremists following a dangerous and hateful ideology, no one is disagreeing with you. If you believe that people should have the right to say whatever they want to say, no one is disagreeing with you. This is a problem you have for which you haven't even been able to muster up 1 sentence of rationale other than to repeat the already agreed statement of "the film did not cause the death" and now tagged on "you do not understand". Yeah right. Let me clear that up for you: on the specific point which we disagree here, I do not accept the validity of your opinion, or the implication that you are some authority on who does or doesn't understand free speech. At the same time, I'm not closed to changing my mind if there is a better idea. I'm sorry if you think you're being a freedom fighter here, but there is a more pressing issue in real time which is the safety and security of groups like the copts in Egypt. It shouldn't be the case that they are now in danger. But it is the case that they are in danger because of the reaction which the film predictably caused from members of their community. Instead of repeating the same thing which everyone agrees with ad nauseum, perhaps you can propose a way in which you can maintain free speech while simultaneously minimizing the risks to innocent bystanders.
No, the problems come from the Islamist ideology of intolerance. You do not understand causation. Read up on it. You do not understand the difference between causation and motive. You do not understand free speech. Go to Wikipedia or some other good source to educate yourself. It is somewhat understandable that you do not understand it, since you live in a country where there is no free speech, and in fact work for a government that suppresses free speech. Read about it. Then come back. That is not my opinion. It is the law in all Western, civilized societies. There are no repercussions for that kind of speech. People are responsible for their own actions. If people feel provoked and resort to violence, they are 100 % responsible. Whatever speech happened is not an excuse or justification. Already agreed? Just in the same post you say that the film "indirectly" caused the death (which is wrong). I studied constitutional law, with degrees, in four countries, and am admitted to the bar in two countries/states. In fact, and this may surprise you, I even took comparative constitutional law classes by an Iranian professor (female) about Iranian law. Trust me - compared to you, I am an authority on free speech. This is nonsense. They have always been in danger, regardless of some ridiculous Youtube clip. I spoke to copts in Germany before the Internet even really existed (as in being available to the general public), in 1992. They told me about what persecution they went through in Egypt. You are once again making the mistake - whether on purpose or not - to describe the outbursts of intolerance and violence as a mere reaction to something. The truth is that these people are already intolerant and already ready to be violent and full of hate against "non-believers" and the USA and the West, and that they will LOOK FOR reasons to become violent. It is utterly ridiculous to pretend that the Copts are in danger because of that idiotic film. They are and have already been in danger because of the intolerant ideology a lot of the Muslims in these countries follow. It's quite simple, these intolerant *****tards need to at some point wake up and smell the coffee. We will not let them intimidate us into not criticizing them, or even mocking them. Don't worry - we will maintain our free speech, whatever your intolerant reaction to this will be.
Really, they're helping him? He looks deceased in that picture... http://www.tayyar.org/Tayyar/News/Po...ia-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/wa...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"
Oh please, spare me. I supervise half a dozen of the world's leading law firms, believe me when I say I am not impressed by your designation nor surprised that you think you are right because you are admitted to the bar. I have seen lawyers who would piss on your credentials engage in the most illegal and immoral behavior. Take that **** elsewhere. Uhh, thanks for the legal advice. Also thanks for ignoring the heightened risk to copts (which they themselves are stating). I'm sure they're super supportive of your behavior. Oh and btw, you've done a pretty ****ty job holding on to your freedoms and civil liberties recently thanks to people with beliefs just like yourself, who are lawyers, just like yourself. Here's a wikilink, maybe you'll understand why I don't give a s*** what they taught you in law school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
[rquoter]Now it is Washington's responsibility to avoid overreacting to this provocation in Benghazi, despite the tragic deaths of Mr Stevens and his colleagues. Extremism on both sides fuels a feedback loop of outrage that benefits only the lunatic fringe. And who loses? All those who favour peaceful understanding between cultures.[/rquoter] I largely agree but as the article points out it is up to both sides. Morsi, if he is going to prove to be a new type of Muslim leader to govern for all of Egypt needs to take some steps to stop the overreaction of the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups rioting in the streets. He also needs to move to strongly protect the Coptic minority which has already been coming up under attack since the fall of Mubarak.
You really think he's,"against taxes against the wealthy?". Everyone gets taxed....some pay way more than others. Edit: meh. That was off topic. That's a really sad picture. Awful.
Riiiiight. Given what you've said in this thread, and the way you have attacked me for the little bit of information about my job I've shared before, I wouldn't trust you with one more word. Alternatively, if you'd like I can give you a short lesson on duty of confidentiality Mr lawyer.
*** all the middle east. Don't know why we waste our time trying to help them... well, minus for their oil, of course. Carpet bomb that entire area and say 'peace, we're out!' They're not worth our lives, money, or time.
You are aware that many of the people there that dislike amerika do so because of the so called "help", right?
This is silly and just not true. If you go and provoke a lion by poking him with a stick and you get eaten, we'd call you stupid and say you got what you deserved (and make fun of you with a Darwin award). Yes, the lion did the killing, but your actions was partially responsible for the end result. It's no different here, except that the people who suffered are not the people who took the initial action. Islamic terrorists are savages. Their response was totally predictable (not the specifics, but that there would be a violent response). Whoever does the poking is partly responsible for the results, no different than the case of the lion. That doesn't mean they don't have the right to do what they did, but if I do something that I know will likely result in someone dying, I share responsibility in that result. If I drive drunk, and it causes a wreck of two other cars trying to avoid my swerving, I'm still going to be held responsible even if I'm not the one that did the actual crashing. My actions directly led to the end result. That's just basic common sense.
