The "Innocence of Muslims" movie and the embassy attacks

[mlp]

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.

Sure, it's subjective. Which is why the law provides for a "reasonable person" standard in cases where emotional distress is argued as part of damages.

But I'm not saying that emotional distress should give rise to a cause of action (although the concept has long been established in the law). I'm saying that when words are used maliciously and with intent to cause physical harm, those physically harmed (or their families, in case of suicide and other deaths) should have redress.

As for your friend, and others like him - I steer clear of that type of person.

 

[cornsail]

Forgive me if some of these questions were intended to be rhetorical, mlp. I am composing this response as my best shot at answering them, as I think you may have been hoping for actual answers.

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?

I don't consider "exercise of free speech" and "bullying" to be mutually exclusive terms, so I can't treat this as an either/or question. In the example, I think it is an exercise free speech and not necessarily bullying. If it's done maliciously and repeatedly with the intention to harass or belittle then I would probably consider it bullying. Context and details are important when it comes to judging whether something is bullying as well as how severe it is. As to the implied question of whether it should be allowed, I do think verbal bullying should be punishable in schools to some extent. Which is not the same as saying it should be illegal.

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?

That is a highly unusual hypothetical, so it's hard to know what to make of it. I think intention is key. If you keep saying something to someone who's asked you to leave them alone and it's part of some sort of coordinated effort with a group, then that starts to look like malicious intent and is probably a form of bullying. But the details are important.

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?

Yes, definitely.

How about if they have weekly parades to denounce homosexuality as an abomination?

If it's not government sponsored, yes.

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?

I would feel bad about this no matter who heard it and regardless of any negative consequences. But obviously I would feel particularly horrible if a person I love committed suicide or went on a killing spree.

After all, these people were just exercising their religious and free speech rights - they're not in any way responsible, right?

You seem to be assuming that supporting free speech is contingent upon the belief that exercises of free speech cannot be morally reprehensible and cannot have negative consequences. It is not. I think all of us would agree that such a belief would be foolish. But something can be bad and wrong without being illegal and without being better off illegal.

In your hypothetical, I don't think the people holding the parades would be morally responsible for the suicide or the killing spree. I think they would be morally responsible for expressing intolerant views that have no logical basis and that hurt people. You could say they are morally responsible for the pain directly caused by this to an extent, but I would not say that they were morally responsible for how people chose to deal with that pain. The person shooting up the streets is still the one responsible for his/her murders.

 

[Digger]

I'm saying that when words are used maliciously and with intent to cause physical harm, those physically harmed (or their families, in case of suicide and other deaths) should have redress.

I fully understand your meaning here, but where do we draw the line? If stating my personal opinion causes some wackjob to lose their nut and start killing people, is it really my fault or is it the emotional instability of the person who is actually inflicting the physical harm on themselves or others?

 

[Digger]

I may be too cynical or just conspiracy-crazy, but the timing of this makes me wonder. When something like this happens where it's not quite clear who provided the petrol for the fire, the question that comes to mind is: Who benefits from this? But the most recent coverage I read on this suggested the director of the movie was a Coptic Christian of Egyptian origin. Of course, it's not clear whether he's the puppeteer or just another puppet.

The director could be both the puppeteer and the puppet in this particular circumstance. We may never know. The whole thing is shady no matter how you slice it. If you've watched the 14-minute trailer, and I highly recommend that you do so, you will notice that every instance of the words 'Muhammad' and 'Islam' have been dubbed over after-the-fact. It's quite obvious that the actors were not saying those words during the original filming.