The "Innocence of Muslims" movie and the embassy attacks

Well, I was responding to "nobody" in "Nobody has a problem equating Christianity with the outspoken nutjobs here in the U.S. who are constantly quoting scripture as a basis for their vile actions, so I have no problem pointing my finger in the other direction as well." by pointing to people who indeed have a problem with that. Your statement (the first part any way) was not a statement that "Christianity is constantly being equated with the vocal bible-thumping nutjobs in this country", but that nobody has a problem with this. Which is untrue, because there are people who DO have a problem with that.
 
It doesn't really matter whether the film incited this or not, though I tend to think it was just used as an excuse.
Anyone who has actually watched the film will agree with you there. Consequences aside... it is freaking hilarious. The production values are on par with the 1970's show Land of the Lost, and the dialogue is so badly dubbed that only a moron wouldn't realize it was altered after-the-fact to incite the muslim wackjobs. The fact that they are rioting over this at all speaks volumes about their intelligence level. I honestly thought I was watching an SNL sketch at first.
 
This opportunity is too good to let go to waste for some people.

New York (CNN) -- A controversial advertisement that critics say is hateful toward Muslims will appear in New York City subway stations starting next week, despite the city's attempts to halt the campaign.

729x.jpg
"We don't think it's controversial," said Pamela Geller, the executive director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative. "It's truth. The MTA has run anti-Israel ads before and no one had an issue about it. 'Any war on innocent civilians is savagery': What's controversial here?"
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/19/us/new-york-controversial-subway-ad/index.html
 
For those who think that words are just words - what is your take on bullying? O.K. as long as it's limited to verbal bullying?
 
We have that Leon Panetta here in New Zealand at the moment. He was interviewed this morning and seemed to have all sorts of ideas about what New Zealand should do. He also went on about invading Iran. He seems to want NZ to help him invade various countries and he was talking about war with Yemen. What a loony.
 
I don't consider supporting freedom of speech to be equivalent to claiming that "words are just words" (actually I'm not quite sure what that means even). Bullying I don't typically consider to be "okay" (i.e. I consider it to be a bad thing). As for what the appropriate ramifications are, that depends on the specifics of the particular incident.
 
For those who think that words are just words - what is your take on bullying? O.K. as long as it's limited to verbal bullying?
I pretty much agree with these guys: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/combat-bullying-but-protect-religious-and-political-speech
" But how can public schools balance the need for school safety with a commitment to freedom of expression?
To help answer this question, a coalition of 17 education and religious groups released guidelines on May 22 designed to help public schools combat bullying and harassment while simultaneously upholding the rights of students to free speech and free exercise of religion under the First Amendment..."..." Following current law, the guidelines draw a distinction between student speech that expresses an idea, including religious and political views, and student speech that is intended to cause (or school officials demonstrate is likely to cause) emotional or psychological harm to the listener. The former is, in most circumstances, protected speech, but the latter may and should be stopped...."

.."But as the guide explains, student speech conveying religious or political ideas is protected by the First Amendment and therefore “may not be the basis for disciplinary action absent a showing of substantial disruption (or likely disruption) or a violation of another student’s legal rights.”
Rather than shutting down student speech about politics and religion, schools should help students master the skills of civil discourse, including the skill of listening to speech with which one profoundly disagrees.
Censorship doesn’t make schools safer. On the contrary, suppressing speech only deepens divisions and fuels intolerance.
To prepare students for citizenship in a pluralistic democracy that values the First Amendment, schools must be places that are both safe and free.
A safe school is free of bullying and harassment — and a free school is safe for student speech, including speech about issues that divide us."

The rest of article is at the site. :)
 
For those who think that words are just words - what is your take on bullying? O.K. as long as it's limited to verbal bullying?
Speech is a tool. I will always be of the opinion that the right to use this tool freely must be protected.

Shall we outlaw the possession of hammers because some people use them to crack other people's heads open? The problem isn't the tool.

But if we want to start thinking about restricting people's rights for the sake of a better society, I say we start with limiting reproductive rights first. Like, mandatory irreversible sterilization for everyone with an IQ under 150. Then you wouldn't be very likely to have bullies who use words to torment or make movies that incite fanatics to violence.
 
Say that some students belong to a church that teaches that homosexuality is an abomination. Every time one one of these students encounters a gay student, they say "Homosexuality is an abomination." Exercise of free speech or bullying? Does anything change if there are 150 people in a school of 200 that say this to every gay student, everytime they encounter him/her?

Let's say it's a town, and most of the people in the town belong to this same church, and say the same thing to anyone they suspect of being gay. Free speech? How about if they have weekly parades to denounce homosexuality as an abomination? How would you feel if the person who hears this day in and day out is someone you love? How do you feel if the targeted person commits suicide? How do you feel if the targeted person breaks psychologically and starts shooting up main street? After all, these people were just exercising their religious and free speech rights - they're not in any way responsible, right?
 
Like, mandatory irreversible sterilization for everyone with an IQ under 150. Then you wouldn't be very likely to have bullies who use words to torment or make movies that incite fanatics to violence.

You're equating intelligence with compassion. I can tell you that's a false equation. Just for example, many psychopaths and sociopaths have a very high I.Q.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
MLP we see this every day with those inbred Phelps wackjobs and as much as I detest them I still respect their right to free speech.
 
MLP we see this every day with those inbred Phelps wackjobs and as much as I detest them I still respect their right to free speech.

Sure, it's out there daily. And the cumulative effect leads to suicides - we've also seen that.

My point is that when someone uses language intentionally to do harm, the person(s) harmed (or their families) should have recourse against the person doing harm. IOW, you have free speech rights, but you also are responsible for the consequences.
 
IOW, you have free speech rights, but you also are responsible for the consequences.
Assuming you're referring to the filmmaker here, I disagree. If a bunch of knuckle-dragging thugs decide to work themselves into an ape-like frenzy over some silly film that's just one or two quality points above an episode of Gumby, that's entirely their issue and nobody else's. Here's a novel idea: How about we start holding them accountable for their disproportionate response, rather than trying to place limitations on free speech?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pickle Juice
Criminalizing speech, or allowing people who don't like what you have to say to sue you in court for it, isn't much different from censorship.

Being harmed by another's words is completely subjective, and is as dependent upon your own desire to see harm where no harm may be intended as it is dependent upon the words you are exposed to.

And this is a hot-button issue for me right now, since I am dealing with a friend who is the kind of person who, depending upon how victimized he wants to feel at any given moment, will respond to "gee, isn't the sky a lovely shade of blue today? :) " with "Why are you saying THIS to me now?!?!?! I never said it was green!!! I've got a loved one in the hospital right now and you want to argue??? Why are you attacking me with such vicious cruelty???"

As many people as you find have no compassion and will use words cruelly and without responsibility, mlp, there are probably ten times that number who see insult everywhere they look. I don't want free speech to be held hostage by people with such diseased self images.
 
The distinction between free speech and bullying, in my opinion, is the forcible intrusion of said speech into my personal space with the intent to cause me harm.