[Dialogue] Free Speech

Tue Sep 18 08:04:20 PDT 2012

There is another issue involved in all of this. From what I gather, the latest clashes were not spontaneous. The movie had been around for quite a while - then someone decided to dub it into Arabic. It looks like someone or some group were looking for material to use baiting segments of the world's population who easily allow themselves to be baited. And it also appears that there were organisers distributed across several countries who probably played a large part in triggering the various protests going on across the world. 

So something else is going on - there is a cynical manipulation by some group for some hidden purpose. And it may not neccessarily be Al-Qaeda.

Dharma 

>________________________________
> From: Ken Fisher <hkf232 at gmail.com>
>To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net> 
>Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:31 PM
>Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>"Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people?"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>While on the surface I agree, I find myself easily vilifying the reactionary government of my own country, Canada.  Hyperbole is normal in North America's political climate.
>
>
>Certainly the political elites vilify and demean. 
>
>
>Would that we lived in the world of 'thee and thou' Quakers, whose speech would be non-violent and reasonable.
>
>
>And.. in Canada we have legislation regarding hate crime.
>
>
>The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done.
>A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property
>In Canada it is also a crime to incite hatred. Sections 318 and 319 are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
>
>e.g. Two Nova Scotia men were convicted
under Canada's hate crime laws in relation to a cross-burning incident on the
lawn of an interracial couple in Windsor, N.S.
>Let's have the World Court debate it.
>
>
>Ken
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>On 2012-09-18, at 7:07 AM, jlepps at pc.jaring.my wrote:
>
>The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film,  and the on-going
violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of
caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about
Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most
welcome.
>
>
>Free Speech
>Sept. 2012
>
>
The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life
since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for
those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for
voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought
and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion,
however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority.
The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution (“Congress
shall make no laws abridging … the freedom of speech..” – first
introduced to Congress in 1789.)  
>
>In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the
country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet.
Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the
second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot,
flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice.
All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal
prosecution.
>
>Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One
simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One
needs to consider the consequences of one’s speech on others, not simply
the desire to express one’s opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper
that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with
that insight: their exercise of “freedom of the press” violated no legal
strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to
Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the “freedom”
end?
>
>Perhaps there are some “common sense” guidelines. One may be free to walk
wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators
on the path, one limits one’s choices. One may be free to pick the
foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it
alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the
poison oak – they’re just acting the way they are. It’s in our best
interest to keep out of their way.
>
>This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: “Draco Dormiens Nunquam
Tittilandus.” (“Never tickle a sleeping dragon.”) One may be free to
tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in
repose. 
>
>Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent
film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and
have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great
amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated
and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives. 
>
>That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die
for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their
“freedom” occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed
as they’d like us to believe.
>
>This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or
alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their
sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that
culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their
religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative
is to face the consequences.
>
>In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many
potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not
to say one must compromise one’s principles or alter one’s opinions. But
it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the
outcome of one’s pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite
limited.
>
>Of course “free speech” does have limits and controls, even in the West.
Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from
publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types
of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to
set those bounds. 
>
>It seems like “free expressions of opinion” that occasion physical harm
to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery
slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the
principle that “Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose
begins.” Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or
otherwise vilify other people? 
>
>John
> 
_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Dialogue mailing list
>Dialogue at lists.wedgeblade.net
>http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20120918/4f8ef848/attachment.html>