Islam - the religion of peace

[broncofan]

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

[broncofan]

What is also interesting is that Greenwald is excoriating the people who engaged in free speech rallies when ostensibly he should be condemning the French government for arresting Dieudonne. No doubt he is condemning the arrest of Dieudonne but in the context of arguing that the free speech arguments in favor of Charlie Hebdo are a sham.

The position he should be taking is that hate speech laws should be abolished and that nobody should be threatened for speech (by private citizens or the government) no matter how despicable...

[Ben]

I agree that hate speech laws should not be imposed. But does anyone think it is the same thing to celebrate mass murder as it is to draw a blasphemous cartoon? Neither should be punished, but Glenn Greenwald seems to represent the black and white thinkers union of the left wing.

Dieudonne is also not really a comedian. His act consists of advocating for the release of a man who burned a Jew to death over three weeks of torture in a Paris suburb, and various blatant anti-semitic incitements, including Holocaust denial. His on-stage comments to applause have in some cases consisted of the mockery of hate crime victims by talking about the state of the victim's corpse. Yet, it is absurd that these acts are criminal because they only bring attention to a man who is a cult figure in certain circles.

It is also note-worthy that no thinking, rational person would advocate for the murder of Dieudonne...France's speech laws can be and should be freer, but that in no way makes the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo the equivalent of Dieudonne.

I think we kind of agree --
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???

[broncofan]

I think we kind of agree --
Not entirely sure what you mean by left-wing. By left-leaning do you mean concern for others?, empathy? so-called big government????
But Greenwald describes himself as a civil libertarian.
He favors free speech... he's a big advocate for free speech, getting rid of our draconian drug laws and, well, doesn't think pornography should be banned. So, is Greenwald really left???

Left wing I think when it comes to the use of the national security apparatus and civil rights. I don't know that Greenwald is left-wing on other issues such as income inequality, social programs, immigration policy etc.

What I don't think he emphasizes is that many people who participated in the Free Speech rally would not, if given the choice, personally favor hate speech laws. He can't seem to figure out whether he wants to insult the people who support the rights of Charlie Hebdo as bigots, or to support broader free speech protections (ie. consistency in their position).

And he says without any support at all that if Dieudonne were murdered merely for causing offense, that nobody would stand up for his right to say horrendous things openly? What does he base that on? He does not know (but asserts nonetheless) that people were supporting the content of the cartoons rather than the right of the cartoonists to to publish them without threat?

[broncofan]

I think we kind of agree --

I bet we do agree. I think he has a knack for saying things that are mostly correct in an unappealing way.

Here's what I agree with him on: It is somewhat anathema to free speech to make any distinctions among types of speech...it's one of the reasons in this country regulations of speech are scrutinized more closely if they are not "content-neutral". The government should not be in the business of deciding what is true or not or what is more abhorrent or offensive than something else.

Here's what I disagree with him on: that the people who re-published Charlie Hebdo cartoons were MOSTLY hypocrites who only rallied in support of the murdered cartoonists because of an anti-muslim agenda. I bet you the murdered cartoonists themselves would have been the first to advocate for the abandonment of France's hate speech laws.

[plankton]

I wish there was a way to have a fairy tale ending or at least a way to peacefully co- exist like they do in the movies also. But unfortunately I live in the real word . And life is not a movie with a some Miraculous solution that solves everything. But i do realize that like some movies some cultures/ religion ect are good and some suck. The southern slave culture for instance was bad and sucked. Anything that forces other beings to behave or think in a certain way or face punishment when they don't and they are doing them no harm cannot be defended if one has any sense of humanity or peaceful intentions. But hey it's your choice what to believe. For now anyway.

[trish]

No, there is no fairy tale ending where we all live together peacefully and happily ever after. Not even 246 Republicans can be expected to get along with each other and play nice. I have no expectation that we will ever live in a world without terrorism, violent crime, or even large scale, economy-collapsing, Wall Street banking scams. Quite obviously the world would be better off without terrorists, violent criminals and white collar con-artists. Con-artists are a problem–not bankers and stock brokers. Violent criminals are a problem–not African/Americans. Terrorists are a problem–not Buddhists ( http://www.internationalpolicydigest...dhism-myanmar/ ), nor Muslims, nor Christians ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html ), nor Jews, Hindi, Rastafarians nor any other religion. There’s a saying about a baby and bath water that seems to apply here.

Only someone living in a Grimm nightmare, not the real world, would suggest we eradicate an entire religion to which 23% of the world’s population subscribes. The way toward making the world a happier place is to listen to one another's stories with empathy and patience, argument and gentle persuasion. In this way we modify each other and diminish intransigence. There is a role for government too: it’s not to wage eternal war on opposing world-views, but rather 1) domestically- to legislate fair, even-handed laws and regulations, enforce them without malice, and 2) internationally- to maintain diplomatic channels, encourage communication, travel, trade and cultural exchange.

[Ben]

France Assaults Free Speech in the Name of Free Speech:

[plankton]

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.

[trish]

Sorry but we do live in a grim world. And sometimes things we wish we did not have to do we must or at least should do unless we are deluded. And certain segments of the population are more prone to violence. And unless someone is blind,delusional or brainwashed they would see that.

Yes, people who have been exploited, disrupted, invaded and provoked tend to react badly––relatively speaking. We live in a grim world; but only someone living in a Grimm fairy tale world would suggest we could and should eradicate 1.6 billion people. Wake up! You're dreaming!!