American Consulate Attack in Libya

[Martina]

Based on that Al Jazeera article I cited, I think it is more common even in western countries to police speech than not to.

I think what Toughy was quoting was a play on words illustrating the difference of emphasis in values. It is probably true that more people in the world value a public sphere in which speech can be regulated than one in which it is not.

I am with Dreadgeek on this. I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I think that the Al Jazeera article is probably factually correct. I disagree with the author's intent -- that we (the U.S.) as outliers ought to move more toward the middle.

As far as I am concerned, that would end up in interminable legal battles with the religious right who would take any opportunity to start limiting people's opportunities to express ideas and experiences that conflict with what they believe is "right."

I do believe that in voluntary communities -- like butchfemmeplanet.com, for example -- that people can police away. We just have to live with the consequences.

I don't think that we have had serious problems differentiating between harrassment and freedom of speech, but I would have to ask a lawyer. But people are protected in the U.S. from being harrassed on the job. If we could not have freedom of speech and the right not to be harrassed in public space, then I would have to rethink. But we seem to be succeeding in making that distinction.

[Corkey]

The whole thing comes down to:
free speech v.s. violent action.

In this country and perhaps no other that I know of one can say what they want as long as it doesn't harm physically another, i.e.: no yelling fire in a crowded theater type of thing.

In other countries such as our neighbor to the north hate speech is regulated where here it is not.

There was a young woman on Chris Matthews the other day who came from an Islamic country, who discussed the indoctrination of Islam in the early years of up bringing. She grew up immersed in the Koran. When she went to university she traveled and came to realize that other cultures had differing view points on religion and free speech. She (and I'm paraphrasing here) said that she sees a need for education of other cultures in Islam. How to get there: she and others she is working with are doing that education. I fully support her efforts.

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by Corkey

The whole thing comes down to:
free speech v.s. violent action.

In this country and perhaps no other that I know of one can say what they want as long as it doesn't harm physically another, i.e.: no yelling fire in a crowded theater type of thing.

In other countries such as our neighbor to the north hate speech is regulated where here it is not.

There was a young woman on Chris Matthews the other day who came from an Islamic country, who discussed the indoctrination of Islam in the early years of up bringing. She grew up immersed in the Koran. When she went to university she traveled and came to realize that other cultures had differing view points on religion and free speech. She (and I'm paraphrasing here) said that she sees a need for education of other cultures in Islam. How to get there: she and others she is working with are doing that education. I fully support her efforts.

One of the things I appreciate, especially in Higher Education institutions, are efforts to diversify campus populations and incorporate curriculum involving other cultures. The university where I earned my masters degree is equipped with an International Student Affairs Office. I think most college/university campuses have these nowadays.

At the time I was earning my masters in Communication, the director and his assistant were also peers in my cohort. We worked on issues just like the interviewee spoke about on the Chris Matthews show. What many might not be completely in the know about is that the process is slow in building specialized curriculum at a higher ed institutional level. It's an intracate dance of power between governing agency and those who oversee the regulatory arm of education. To give an example of how arduous this process is, university settings must meet criteria in construction of curriculum by department and simultaneously, if possible, be able to meet funding requirements so that a class can be constructed within particular departments with a professor who is adept in creating syllabae designed specifically for this cultural education need. I was fortunate to attend to unversities in Oregon (a public one for my bachelors; a private one for my masters) where both universities had staff in strategic departments (sociology, communication, business and mathematics) who had professors who incorporated a deeper cultural understanding of these types of ideas expressed by the Chris Matthews' interviewee.

As of late, even though I graduated from my masters programme, it appears that International Studies is still a project that is not fully expanded enough in terms of cross-cultural studies, which I think is very important in an orchestrated attempt to not only meet a need for International students but to provide an education for those who do not fall under the rubric within International Studies. That's the unfortunate part of the process of higher education issues that most American universities face nowadays and certainly is deserving of a more focused attempt at creating access to this particular type of education, overall.

[Toughy]

Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.

First I did not think up the 'to insult' vs 'from insult'. I heard it on, I think, the Randi Rhodes show (progressive talk radio syndicated)

Your argument and questions are a perfect example of the problem. You view free speech from a USA cultural perspective and they don't. You define free speech from that perspective and others do not.......hell France does not agree with our ideas around free speech. As Martina pointed out lots of folks define free speech from a different cultural perspective and narrative. There are few 'hard line in the sand' concepts that all cultures can agree on...or should.... such as slavery, child porn, child sex workers, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal to name a few.

And as I said earlier and Corkey has repeated: The response to an insult (free speech) should not be one of violence in any culture. I think no violence belongs in the 'hard line in the sand' category.....but humans are not there yet. Non-violent protest should be the response and the large majority of the response to that obnoxious crap has been non-violent.

And we should all remember the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the ex-seals security folks is not connected to the film.

The protests (mostly non-violent) occurring in many Islamic countries are about that film. A 15 minutes Arabic translation of the film was shown on (right wing) Egyptian TV and that is when the protests began.

I did a lot of nodding my head yes when reading your posts.

[dreadgeek]

Toughy;

I don't have any issue with non-violent protests. I *do* have issues with violent protests and blasphemy laws. And I'm not looking at this issue from the point of view of the USA and that we are right. I'm looking at it from three points of view, two of them not my own. I look at it from a writer. That is *my* point of view and I want to be able to write a story about what it might look like to live in a Christianist Theocracy without fear of losing my liberty or my life. I'm not saying we live in such a society but the distance between that society and us now is the boundary between having the right to free speech and not.

No, I'm looking at this from the point of view of Salman Rushdie who wrote a book a quarter century ago and had a fatwa placed against him calling for his death. As it turns out, I had thought the fatwa had been lifted and then it turns out that three days ago, Ayatollah Hassan Sanei of Iran, reissued the bounty on Rushdie's head to the tune of 320,000 pounds. I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person burning the American flag, an action I disagree with but think should be protected. I'm looking at it from the point of Pussy Riot, locked up on a charge that comes down to blasphemy. I'm looking at it from the point of view of ACT-UP and Queer Nation back in 1992. I'm looking at it from the point of view of my parents in Birmingham in the 1960s. I'm looking at it from the point of view of every time anyone stood up and spoke truth to power when power would rather they shut up. Power would rather the powerless shut the hell up and if they think they can get away with it, the rich and the orthodox will use the power of the state to make sure that the powerless don't say uncomfortable things.

Peaceful protests outside embassies do not concern me. They are exercising their right to give vent to their anger and, as such, I might contemplate it but does not concern me.

Saying that people should be put to death or imprisoned because of what they write or speak or film concerns me. That Vladimir Putin had Pussy Riot locked up on a charge that comes down to blasphemy concerns me. Bounties on the heads of writers concern me. The detention of Bradley Manning concerns me. These are all attempts to silence voices that are inconvenient for power. Pharmaceutical companies being able to slap of writ of prior restraint on a journalist because they've written an article that shows fixing of results in trials concerns me.

Like I said before, I don't trust majorities, I don't trust mobs, I don't trust the rich, I don't trust the church, I don't trust the state and I don't trust the powerful. Majorities gravitate toward tyrannies, a democracy can be as tyrannical as a totalitarian state. Mobs are just the crowd at the lynching, the people at the witch burning, whenever bullying gets social sanction. The rich will gravitate toward plutocracy and the church will implement theocracy if they can get away with it. The only thing that stands between us and those various flavors of dystopia is the ability to write against it, march against it, rail against it and convince others of the rightness of our warnings. If that means risking that some people might be offended at the rantings of some fool then so be it.

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Toughy

First I did not think up the 'to insult' vs 'from insult'. I heard it on, I think, the Randi Rhodes show (progressive talk radio syndicated)

Your argument and questions are a perfect example of the problem. You view free speech from a USA cultural perspective and they don't. You define free speech from that perspective and others do not.......hell France does not agree with our ideas around free speech. As Martina pointed out lots of folks define free speech from a different cultural perspective and narrative. There are few 'hard line in the sand' concepts that all cultures can agree on...or should.... such as slavery, child porn, child sex workers, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal to name a few.

And as I said earlier and Corkey has repeated: The response to an insult (free speech) should not be one of violence in any culture. I think no violence belongs in the 'hard line in the sand' category.....but humans are not there yet. Non-violent protest should be the response and the large majority of the response to that obnoxious crap has been non-violent.

And we should all remember the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the ex-seals security folks is not connected to the film.

The protests (mostly non-violent) occurring in many Islamic countries are about that film. A 15 minutes Arabic translation of the film was shown on (right wing) Egyptian TV and that is when the protests began.

I did a lot of nodding my head yes when reading your posts.

[Toughy]

I believe we are in agreement Aj............

[Martina]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I don't trust majorities, I don't trust mobs, I don't trust the rich, I don't trust the church, I don't trust the state and I don't trust the powerful.

I love this.

[Kobi]

This is not good news.


NEW YORK (Reuters) - As Muslim countries reverberate with fierce protests over a film mocking the Prophet Mohammad, an ad equating Islamic jihad with savagery is due to appear next week in 10 New York City subway stations despite transit officials' efforts to block it.

The city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority had refused the ads, citing a policy against demeaning language. The American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is behind the ad campaign, then sued and won a favorable ruling from a U.S. judge in Manhattan.

According to court documents, the ad reads: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel/Defeat Jihad."

MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said the ads would be displayed starting on Monday, but he could not say at which stations.

"Our hands are tied. The MTA is subject to a court ordered injunction that prohibits application of the MTA's existing no-demeaning ad standard," said Donovan.

In July, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled that the ad was protected speech. While agreeing with the MTA that the ad was "demeaning a group of people based on religion," Engelmayer ruled that the group was entitled to the "highest level of protection under the First Amendment."

The American Freedom Defense Initiative gained notoriety when it opposed creation of a Muslim community center near the site of the Twin Towers, which were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ads-critici...232906064.html

[Corkey]

I wish these groups would grow the F up.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Martina

I am with Dreadgeek on this. I am a strong proponent of free speech, but I think that the Al Jazeera article is probably factually correct. I disagree with the author's intent -- that we (the U.S.) as outliers ought to move more toward the middle.

I'm actually rather concerned that in the US there is so much sympathy for the viewpoint that we should have laws that protect people from hearing things they might find offensive. I say that because as a minority of a minority of a minority the chances that I will say something offensive to *someone* in the majority is very high. If I write about atheism or, for that matter, evolutionary biology I will offend many religious people who would just as soon not have to be reminded that there are atheists. If I write about queer things then I am in danger of offending people for whom the very statement "I'm here, I'm queer, I refuse to apologize for either" is an attack on the very foundations of their most dearly held religious beliefs. If I write about racism, I'm in danger of offending the white majority. So operating *simply* from self-interest, I am opposed to almost all forms of censorship including the most subtle and insidious of them which is self-censorship.

If, one day, we should listen to the siren songs of censorship which will tell us that there will be peace, justice and harmony if only people can't say things which might give offense, we queer people will quickly find ourselves in an untenable position. Such laws--or social codes--will never be such that it would be the case that as a minority I can say "<insert slur against whites here> hate black people and live only to oppress us" but a white person couldn't say "<insert slur against blacks here> hate white people and live only to <insert anti-black stereotype here>". Never. Majorities simply don't do that to themselves. Rather, what would be more likely is that if I spoke out against racism I might quickly find myself in the dock. Why? Because, as the many threads about white privilege here amply demonstrate, whenever you start pointing out racism or privilege someone is going to get offended. Should *offense* be the touchstone we use to decide what goes to far or should it be something else? I would submit that it should be something *other* than offense.

Yes, I understand that other cultures look at the issue differently but my own reading of history leads me to not trust human beings in large groups and to hold majorities suspect. I fear not for the person who wants to praise Jesus loudly and long but for the person who does not believe in Jesus. I do not fear for the person who wants to wave the flag and shout USA! USA! at the top of their lungs. Rather, I fear for the person who wants to talk about the people who are 'faces at the bottom of the well'. They need free speech and they need to be able to speak out without fear of governmental retribution.

Speech that gives succor to the majority and those in power will never need protection, it is the minority report, the lonely voice, the voice of the outsider and the free thinker that need protection. All the protests at all the embassies in all the world doesn't change that.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

One other point I wanted to make. In his 2012 book, "You Can't Read This Book" British author Nick Cohen (a man with as sterling left-wing credentials as you can find in the West) takes the reader on a tour of how speech is constrained in the UK. Now, this might sound weird to Americans but one thing Cohen pilloried was that in the UK something can be prevented from being published by prior restraint. Let's say that someone wanted to publish a book about Rupert Murdoch or David Cameron or Tony Blair. Those men could set their pet lawyers loose upon the hapless author and her publisher and have them sued so that they couldn't publish their book even if every word in it was true and sourced to the heavens. Simply the fact that the subject of the book might be offended by it is enough for a UK court to shut down publication. Chilling? Yes, as a matter of fact, it *has* had a chilling effect and one effect of this is that the powerful in Britain need not worry overly much about articles or books coming out that put them in a bad light. This goes from MPs to the banks to Murdoch media octopus.

Censorship favors the powerful, not the powerless.

Cheers
Aj