Who Defends Our Right to Free Speech?

[Hobbes]

My questions were...

So why kill 4 people who had absolutely zero to do with the movie?
Were those four men responsible for what some nimwit stateside did?
Were they just convenient targets?


Your answer was...

In most of those countries they have no idea what free speech rights are because they never had any.
To them, it's inconceivable that a film like that could be made without at least the approval, and at most the support, of our government.
You should know that.
They probably think the film is part of some big hollywood production that was financed by the government.

Its not about whether I like your answer or not, I may disagree with it or agree with it, but instead of having me read between the lines to infer what you are saying please be clear.

I can't believe you aren't getting this.

The four people killed represented the US government did they not?
The attack was on US government property was it not?

If that mob believes the US government condoned the film then in their eyes, those four people were absolutely responsible.

Cmon man, you're pullin my leg aren't ya?

 

[Lurker66]

Surprisingly, this isn't such a country. Are you suggesting that those countries have the right to project their laws into our territory?

Bottom line, what this guy did is the equivalent of flipping you the bird and calling your mom a cut-rate front-loading cum dumpster. Vile, yes, but you still don't have the right to get all stabby, no matter how offended you might be.

they didnt project their laws at all, they rioted, protested and destroyed some buildings. Thats what usually happens when their prophet gets insulted.

Bottom line is, a film was made that pissed off some muslims, they rioted, some other people killed 4 of our guys and the guy who made the film bears some responsibilty.

 

[Dale00]

its really not a dilemma if you understand that your rights do not extend beyond our national borders. All rights are being discouraged and eroded, thats what laws do, they attempt to define a right but when that happens it diminishes the actual.

Lurker66, I avoided philosophy courses like the plague after seeing the thickness of the stack of assigned books. You apparently dove right in.

I believe that rights are universal and are inalienable. Moral relativism is not for me. Nor are rights granted by governments, rather the free exercise of them.

 

[Dave70968]

Bottom line is, a film was made that pissed off some muslims, they rioted, some other people killed 4 of our guys and the guy who made the film bears some responsibilty.

Only if you agree that the riot was a reasonable and proportionate response. You seem to be missing that key link. Or are you going to go start killing people and blame it on me when I insult your mama again?

 

[uncle money bags]

I can't believe you aren't getting this.

The four people killed represented the US government did they not?
The attack was on US government property was it not?

If that mob believes the US government condoned the film then in their eyes, those four people were absolutely responsible.

Cmon man, you're pullin my leg aren't ya?

Nope , that is how I understood your answer. You can stow the exasperation. I just didnt want to assume that was the point you were making because it means you believe that these people were killed over a film. By that reasoning its hard to believe that only 4 people have been killed as a result. If it is reasonable in their eyes to kill anyone associated with the U.S. government over the film we have been truly fortunate that thousands have not perished as a result.

 

[Hobbes]

Nope , that is how I understood your answer. You can stow the exasperation. I just didnt want to assume that was the point you were making because it means you believe that these people were killed over a film. By that reasoning its hard to believe that only 4 people have been killed as a result. If it is reasonable in their eyes to kill anyone associated with the U.S. government over the film we have been truly fortunate that thousands have not perished as a result.

There you go again.

I didn't say it was "reasonable".
I didn't say the 4 people were killed because of the film, that's what you injected into the conversation.

I thought this thread was about "Free Speech".
Oh look, it's right there in the title. "Who Defends Our Rights to Free Speech?"

If some terrorists took advantage of the opportunity of a riot that's another thread.

But there have been riots all over the world, including Australia, and no deaths other than in Benghazi.

 

[Lurker66]

Only if you agree that the riot was a reasonable and proportionate response. You seem to be missing that key link. Or are you going to go start killing people and blame it on me when I insult your mama again?

lol, in our country it is not reasonable, in their country perhaps it is. But ive not missed your key link. Perhaps you should go to a muslim country, insult allah and then explain to them why they aint being reasonable, like we are here.

 

[Glocktogo]

who bears responcibility, the rioters or those who incite the riot? If he made fun, and people die as a result, is he not responcible for his actions? The right to free speech come with responcibilities and accountabilities, just like other rights.

You don't get it. If you mishandle an inanimate object or non-rational organism, then you bear the responsibility. If you insult a rational being and they strike out in violence, you're guilty of being stupid, but that does not make you responsible for their reaction. If you believe the filmmaker is responsible for the resulting violent reaction, then you're ipso-facto admitting that those who committed the violence are not rational beings. Subhuman if you were.

In other words, you can stampede cattle or incite dogs to fight and you're responsible. If you cause frightened movie patrons to trample each other in fear by yelling fire in a crowded theater, thereby creating an imminent danger where there was none, you're responsible. If you anger people half a world away, you are not responsible for their reactions, they are.

Yelling allah is a pedophile in certain muslim countries is a killing offence. Their culture is different than ours. Reason and reasonableness is not universal. Each culture determines what is reasonable, surely, as a reasonable person, you understand that.

It is reasonable to be angry when insulted. It is not reasonable to commit acts of vandalism and violence when insulted. We have a word for people in this country who do that. They're called criminals. By attempting to hold the filmmaker responsible, you're drawing a moral equivalency between free speech and murder. That is not rational in any sense of the word. We can condemn the act of making the movie, but we dare not condemn the man for exercising his right of free speech.

they didnt project their laws at all, they rioted, protested and destroyed some buildings. Thats what usually happens when their prophet gets insulted.

Bottom line is, a film was made that pissed off some muslims, they rioted, some other people killed 4 of our guys and the guy who made the film bears some responsibilty.

No, he doesn't. The filmmaker did not break any laws within the jurisdiction he's in (he violated the terms of his parole, but the act of making the film is not criminal). The rioters did. They are 100% responsible for their actions. I think you're confusing responsibility with socially unacceptable. Preaching intolerance is unacceptable. It is not criminal. Without mutual respect, there is no respect. They do not respect our rights, therefore they cannot expect us to automatically respect their beliefs.

If I had my way, there would be a caricature of Mohamed on the front page of every secular media outlet and webpage in the world tomorrow morning, along with a statement that they cannot kill all of us. If they want respect, they need to earn it. So far, they have not .

 

[Glocktogo]

How dare you say that HERE? Don't you know you have thrown a lot of members into a fit of rage?

but you 100% correct.

Like the SPLC, the ACLU has its uses. That doesn't mean either organization deserves full credibility in everything they do.

 

[Lurker66]

Was wondering if you were going to comment.

Truthfully we cannot debate this topic of free speech without knowing some things.

Were the deaths a result of protesters and riots or terrorist?
Are we even certain the video caused any of the events, protest, riots ect.?
Are we confident the media or government are reporting truthful facts of the events?
Lastly the intent of the movie maker?

Without having any answers we know a person is accountable for their actions. With regards to Free Speech, we're still accountable for what we say. With regards to making a movie, the producer is accountable for the message or content. One cannot simply make a movie then hide behind "free speech". We can still hold them accountable, we can judge them and we can hold them responsible.

Like any Right, freedom of speech, gets tested, it gets scrutinized and it evolves.
Im of the opinion that there are no Rights in a democracy, rather only temporary privledges subject to the whim of voters or judges or government.

Because Rights dont exist, they cant be projected thousands of miles away and imposed on other nations and cultures. We cant even have the expectation of reasonableness, as to how a different culture may react. To assume they should is folly. Who are we to say what a reasonable action or reaction is. We're not in their country, we dont share the same national experiences. To think any other was is unreasonable.