Originally posted by Bardock42
But almost all thing offend somebody in some way.I support the idea of freedom of speech no matter what. Of course ordering harm to others is not covered by that.
Yes, almost all things offend somebody in some way but people usually don't go with such things on public like in newspappers or on the news.
Originally posted by Sam Z
So if you call somebody "b!tch", "f!@ker", "c!@ksucker" etc it is just fine because you have freedom of speech?
If somebody calls you so, you have right to sew him for morally insulting you. There is no differance between insulting you or your beliefes.
Yes it is fine.
Yea but keep in mind sueing is civil law not criminal law. He couldn't be charged in criminal court but in civil court he may lose because of emotional trauma or whatever dumb excuse. In civil law your not protected by anything really as far as your constitutional rights
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
Yes it is fine.Yea but keep in mind sueing is civil law not criminal law. He couldn't be charged in criminal court but in civil court he may lose because of emotional trauma or whatever dumb excuse. In civil law your not protected by anything really as far as your constitutional rights
Well, yes. But why is swearing and doubting holocaust are concidered as givving an emotional trauma or insult but making a caricature of prophet isn't? Especially since it obviously offends muslims?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'd say almost every news article offends someone in some way. Should they all be banned?
Give example.
If news say that there are 50 people died in Lebanon noone is going to get offend because it is a fact, but when someone say "all muslims are terrorists and must be executed" and make caricature of prophet that looks like a butcher it clealry would offend an entire muslim comunity, and that is not better than swearing or doubting holocaust and must also be investigated by civil court.
Originally posted by Sam ZSwearing and doubting the holocaust should not be banned either.
Give example.
If news say that there are 50 people died in Lebanon noone is going to get offend because it is a fact, but when someone say "all muslims are terrorists and must be executed" and make caricature of prophet that looks like a butcher it clealry would offend an entire muslim comunity, and that is not better than swearing or doubting holocaust and must also be investigated by civil court.
And I didn't mean the news, sorry, I meant the opinions and such that News usually feature.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Swearing and doubting the holocaust should not be banned either.And I didn't mean the news, sorry, I meant the opinions and such that News usually feature.
It mustn't be baned but must be punished by civil court,
if someone swears at you I believe you would brake his nose but there are people that could not protect themselves and their rights and believes by their own, so that is what courts are for.
Well, there is nothing we could do to change people's opinion but quoting some people's opinions and insulting people on the news because of your personal hatred are two differant things.
Originally posted by Sam Z
It mustn't be baned but must be punished by civil court,
if someone swears at you I believe you would brake his nose but there are people that could not protect themselves and their rights and believes by their own, so that is what courts are for.Well, there is nothing we could do to change people's opinion but quoting some people's opinions and insulting people on the news because of your personal hatred are two differant things.
I doubt I would even break their nose. So what if someone swwears at me. The problem is when it not what is said is the problem but how, like if you are repeatedly bothered while eating or something.
But Cartoons are a very common way of expressing ones opinion in our culture and just because now it is about one certain beleif shouldn't mean it should be banned.
Originally posted by Sam Z
Well, yes. But why is swearing and doubting holocaust are concidered as givving an emotional trauma or insult but making a caricature of prophet isn't? Especially since it obviously offends muslims?
I believe it is emotional for those people, but these people weren't directly forced to see it. Like if your offended about what happens on the jerry springer show, then just don't watch. It would be different if people were walking up to the muslims holding pictures of mohammad. That I could see them being more outraged, but not a tv show that they weren't directly forced to watch.
Originally posted by BackFireHear Hear man!
**** Muhammad, freedom of speech> some stupid religious belief. What's really funny about this whole thing is Comedy Central allowed South Park to show the character of Muhammad on an episode years ago. And no one cared at all. Now because some dumbass extremists they don't allow the same exact thing to be shown, really stupid on their part. I was really disapointed that Comedy Central pussed out on that episode. Of course, showing their genius once again, Trey and Matt totally showned how idiotic the channels decision was by, rather than showing Muhammad giving Peter Griffin a football and nothing more, having Jesus Christ shitting all over the American flag and George Bush, something much more offensive to any reasonable person.Any religion that tries to impose their beliefs on others by condemning freedom and speech, and inherently disrespecting those countries that believe in freedom of speech in the process, aren't worth respect themselves.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I doubt I would even break their nose. So what if someone swwears at me. The problem is when it not what is said is the problem but how, like if you are repeatedly bothered while eating or something.But Cartoons are a very common way of expressing ones opinion in our culture and just because now it is about one certain beleif shouldn't mean it should be banned.
It is not one certain belief, and expressing someone's opinion and making fun of entire religion by making caricatures are not the same things, especially since everybody know that muslims believe that painting prophets is a great sin because you can't tell for sure how they looked like.
Originally posted by gordomuchacho
A good analogy would be porn. Some people liek to look at it, but the people who are offended by it don't have to get playboys. If people walked around with that magazine open just throwing it in peoples faces to look at it, thats a lot different than just having the option
So if I, in newspapper insult culture of million people it would be ok, only because I don't force them to read it? It was obvious that it would offend them and was obvious that they would see it sooner or later, and i can't think of group of million people that is offened by porn.
Originally posted by TheKingofKINGS!
Hear Hear man!
By this brilliant logic doubting holocaust and swearing at people must be a fine thing because we all have freedom of speech and problems and beliefs of others must not be imposed on us. He doesn't see the differance between freedom to say anything you want and insulting people's beliefs on public because of your own hatred, I'm not talking about south park now but about caricatures.