Understanding Freedom of Speech

silverharp

alwald wrote: »

As far as I am concerned you were talking about the cartoons, how not allowing cartoons about a prophet(s) in Muslim countries considered a backward way? basically what you are saying is that either all countries or religions will behave in a certain way (which is your way of thinking) or then they are backward? for me this type of mentality is evil and dangerous, because then I will ask you the question "who are you to decide if a mentality is backward or not?" "how do you measure it and what are the criteria?".

In this sphere I would judge a society or their laws based how or if religious rules are incorporated into state laws. So if someone can be taken to court for breaking a religious rule I would absolutely conclude that its a backward country. I guess the guy thats been beaten in Saudi at the moment would be good evidence that Saudi law is backward for instance
There are country indexes of freedom so that would be a start so I dont see the measurement issue? anything that would have North Korea or countries like Saudi at the bottom would be doing it for me.

alwald wrote: »

Edit: What I meant with respected is that when a person lives in a country, the laws of that countrie should and must be respected even if they go against your belief, for instance a Muslim who lives in France and is against the cartoons Must and Should respect the law, which means that the freedom of satire as written in the French constitution should and must be respected, this is not negotiable, likewise if a westerner will go to live/work in a Muslim country then this person should respect the law of that particular country, I hope that I explained it well enough.

no problems with that however we do see a lot of self censorship in ireland and the UK so freedoms are being reduced regardless of what the particular law is.

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

In this sphere I would judge a society or their laws based how or if religious rules are incorporated into state laws. So if someone can be taken to court for breaking a religious rule I would absolutely conclude that its a backward country. I guess the guy thats been beaten in Saudi at the moment would be good evidence that Saudi law is backward for instance
There are country indexes of freedom so that would be a start so I dont see the measurement issue? anything that would have North Korea or countries like Saudi at the bottom would be doing it for me.

I believe that religious rules are incorporated in state laws in most countries - I need to look at it further as I am unsure.

I agree that capital punishments are awful and backward and I dream of a day in which all these capital punishments will disappear from earth.

The freedom that we are talking about is about the prophet's cartoons, I still stand with the fact that if a country decides to ban these cartoons based on their faith or religion then this rule/law should be respected in that particular country, a capital punishment for not respecting this rule/law is way too severe and as such I believe that a fine for example or social work would be more appropriate.

silverharp wrote: »

no problems with that however we do see a lot of self censorship in ireland and the UK so freedoms are being reduced regardless of what the particular law is.

Can you give me some examples please?

silverharp

alwald wrote: »

Can you give me some examples please?

well here was Sky being cowardly in terms or protecting free speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

alwald

silverharp wrote: »

well here was Sky being cowardly in terms or protecting free speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMbwcBYT0DI

I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons, UK and France are two different countries with different traditions and culture, satire isn't part of the UK's culture as far as I am concerned so I don't think that Sky was put under pressure.

In addition the person talking in the video you posted "Caroline Fourest" is a very racist woman, I wouldn't listen to her or read any of her articles or books.

confusedquark

Standman wrote: »

I'll reiterate that I think there should be some limitations to free speech, specifically where it will incite violence or an immediate dangerous situation (shouting 'fire' in a packed cinema, etc.). Again, I do not believe the depictions of Muhammed are covered in these limitations.

I'll also make clear that I think Muslims have every right to be annoyed, disgusted, hurt, etc. I am in no way disputing that and completely understand how these cartoons are offensive to them. My point is that while you can be all these things, I believe it should in no way over-ride someone else's freedom of speech.

So I suppose my feeling is that I would really like the hear a Muslim say that although they disagree with depictions of Muhammed, they recognise that people should be free to do it. I have not come across this anywhere however and decided to come here to ask any Muslims (Irish or otherwise) if they would say so.

Howdy,

Firstly thank you for taking the time to write a well-thought out post. It makes it much easier to have a constructive conversation. I agree with much of what you say, but not all of it.

Whilst I don't agree with any depiction of the prophet, peace be upon him, there's a difference between a depiction of the prophet (pbuh) preaching to his followers, and one in which he has a bomb on his head (as was the case with one of the Danish cartoons a while back). I recognise that people in the west should be free to make depictions, but I also believe that they should be held to some standards of what is acceptable and what isn't, and I don't believe that "it's only cartoon satire" should give people the licence to publish anything they want. Cartoons are a very powerful medium, and plenty a racist/stereotypical message can be effectively communicated through them.

Yes, freedom of speech is not absolute and should have some limitations. The two main questions are - what exactly should the limitations be, and who decides when those limitations have been crossed.

Limitations can be defined by law (e.g. hate speech, inciting violence), and by press standards organisations (more on that below), and sometimes by public opinion - e.g. newspapers and TV stations sometimes issue apologies for something which their viewers find offensive or inappropriate, even if the actual piece didn't break any laws/standards.

That Australian paper having to apologise for printing a cartoon about the Israeli bombing of Gaza (from earlier in the thread) was an interesting case. In the adjudication issued, the Press Council states, “A linkage with Israeli nationality might have been justifiable in the public interest, despite being likely to cause offense. But the same cannot be said of the implied linkage with the Jewish faith that arose from inclusion of the kippah and the Star of David."

So it's ok to link an Israeli to Gaza attacks, but not a Jew? Even though one person can be (and usually is) both an Israeli and a Jew, bringing that person's religion into the equation of a political conflict is a not ok. I'm guessing this was because it was felt that the Jewish faith was being misrepresented.

I had a look into the Australian Press Council guidelines to see how they define what's acceptable and what's not, and they have a lengthy list of points, one of which is "Avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice, or a substantial risk to health or safety, unless doing so is sufficiently in the public interest." The "substantial offence" bit aside, I'm guessing "prejudice" probably covered the above ruling.

We also have a press council in Ireland, and their code of conduct states the following:

"Principle 8 − Prejudice
Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age."

Living in the west, I don't think it's reasonable for Muslims to try and stop every depiction of the prophet, peace be upon him. We can certainly politely request the media to consider not doing so because it is something that we're sensitive about, but I don't think we can force this issue. However, that said, I think we're well within our rights to object to depictions that do misrepresent our faith or are prejudicial. That's something which should probably be done on a case by case basis, and I think we should probably be addressing our complaints to the press council and let them independently decide what constitutes "grave offence" and what doesn't, and to be honest, that's probably the best way to handle it. If they decide that a certain depiction doesn't constitute prejudice, then we should accept it and move on.

schtinggg

alwald wrote: »

I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons, UK and France are two different countries with different traditions and culture, satire isn't part of the UK's culture as far as I am concerned so I don't think that Sky was put under pressure.

You asked for examples of self-censorship and were provided with, in my view, a prime example. Saying 'I believe it was Sky's decision to not show the cartoons' only reinforces what the previous poster said about self-censorship. As far as satire not being part of UK culture; you obviously don't remember Spitting Image, to name but one example.

mollymosfet

Having a basic respect for other people and their culture is important, even if there are parts of it that you don't like or are otherwise harmful.

We can judge our own trash(white western europeans) because we are part of that culture and can vouch for it. It's very hard for us to understand Islam and Muslim cultures from the outside. I am very deeply against any form of homophobia, transphobia, misogyny etc. but I also understand that these values are rampant in muslim countries because of a long history with colonialism. Our own Irish culture lags behind much of the rest of the europe, likely for much the same reasons. Our school system is a colonialist artefact, where else outside of here and the UK has uniforms in western europe?

Freedom of speech discusses in the west bother me - and sometimes discuss me. Because they focus on the right for the privileged to marginalise and oppress more often than not, and care less about people who can't even go outside as themselves(muslim hijabi, transfolk etc.) without running the risk of being assaulted or harassed. We don't talk about how people's freedom of expression is controlled in very meaningful ways - however when it's a bunch of primarily white men that get offed for far more complicated reasons than "Free speech"(France has a brutal colonial history in Algeria, and "satire" of Muslim cultures is seen as rubbing it in their faces) people care.

You hear very little about the Chapel Hill shootings on the other hand, or the transwomen and GNC kids that have been killed or driven to suicide for being themselves. Actual real, meaningful ways in which people live in fear because of how they express themselves.

While I do not believe in censorship as a general principle Muslim lives and dignity are more important than the right for some privileged white christians/atheists to demean other cultures. We need to be responsible. There are many drawings of a cartoonist standing up to a gun with a pencil - acknowledging the power of words and art. If only they showed responsibility with that power. There are many Muslims who've lost their lives and homes in the last couple of months, largely because of the backlash of the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the popularity of American Sniper.

This is why I often can't abide these discussions of free speech - they come across as deeply sheltered. I am not Muslim, but as a transwoman I know what it's like to lead a threatened existence, and some people very important to me are Muslim and I fear for their safety also.

AsianIrish

There were some good articles on this topic on jihad dot ie
I came across recently

niamhstokes

I guess Irish people were never politically correct nor should we ever try to be...so here goes


Charlie Hebdo depicted the Cross in pools of urine and also depicted the Virgin Mary in horrible ways. Absolutely disgusting and vile. Why would they want to do that????? They can intellectualize it all they want, it's horrendeous!

Now as a Catholic do I seek to kill them? No, of course not. I follow the teachings of Christ and pray for them that they may see the errors of their ways.

Christianity is open to ridicule and mockery on a daily basis. None is ever mentioned of the fact that of all the persecuted religious people in the world today, 80% of them are Christians. However the same people wouldn't dare mock or ridicule islam in the same way because of what?? they know they might be given death threats or in extreme circumstances killed. That's the reality !

Spirogyra

mollymosfet wrote: »

It's very hard for us to understand Islam and Muslim cultures from the outside. I am very deeply against any form of homophobia, transphobia, misogyny etc. but I also understand that these values are rampant in muslim countries because of a long history with colonialism.

You don't feel Molly that it has anything to do with the religion itself? which has nothing to do with Colonisation.

I feel though that religion reflects culture and it was then a largely misogynistic and homo/transphobic, violent world,slave ridden etc, the problem is that Islam for the most part has not adapted, it has not evolved to the contemporary world, in line with contemporary understandings of different people and identities.

Tom Dunne

Spirogyra wrote: »

Islam for the most part has not adapted, it has not evolved to the contemporary world, in line with contemporary understandings of different people and identities.

I think this is the core of the issue.

You have to remember that the vast majority (if not all) Muslim countries are developing nations. There are still a lot of very traditional attitudes, especially in terms of freedoms of speech. When an authority figure issues a declaration, it is not up for debate. And this applies whether it is a government leader, a boss in a workplace, or the patriarch of the household.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I think this is the core of the issue.

You have to remember that the vast majority (if not all) Muslim countries are developing nations. There are still a lot of very traditional attitudes, especially in terms of freedoms of speech. When an authority figure issues a declaration, it is not up for debate. And this applies whether it is a government leader, a boss in a workplace, or the patriarch of the household.

Not that we had forgotten that , but what account do you think we should take of It ?

For example should we refrain from doing or saying something that is legal in our country because it is disliked or offensive in another country ?

Tom Dunne

marienbad wrote: »

Not that we had forgotten that , but what account do you think we should take of It ?

You should remember that context is important.

marienbad wrote: »

For example should we refrain from doing or saying something that is legal in our country because it is disliked or offensive in another country ?

Absolutely not.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

You should remember that context is important.

not.

What do you mean by this ? It is one of those phrases that sounds good , but what do you really mean ?

As far as I am concerned I can do and say what I like as long as I am within the law.

If you are saying that changes if I go to Saudi for instance , sure that is true . But that does not mean that my values are wrong and theirs are right , presumptuous as that sounds . But self preservation does come into it . We should still agitate as best we can though.

Tom Dunne

marienbad wrote: »

What do you mean by this ? It is one of those phrases that sounds good , but what do you really mean ?

I mean that when we, as in westerners, make declarations about certain cultures, we have to be careful not to project our beliefs, our culture and our biases.

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I am concerned I can do and say what I like as long as I am within the law.

And I fully agree.

marienbad wrote: »

If you are saying that changes if I go to Saudi for instance , sure that is true . But that does not mean that my values are wrong and theirs are right , presumptuous as that sounds . But self preservation does come into it .

Again, I agree.

marienbad wrote: »

We should still agitate as best we can though.

To you and me, perhaps. Take the Middle East, for example. Rulers essentially buy off the populace, who, for the most part, seem content to take their subsidies, take their handy-number jobs, takes all manner of handouts, so they won't agitate.

This is what I mean about context.

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

I mean that when we, as in westerners, make declarations about certain cultures, we have to be careful not to project our beliefs, our culture and our biases.



And I fully agree.



Again, I agree.



To you and me, perhaps. Take the Middle East, for example. Rulers essentially buy off the populace, who, for the most part, seem content to take their subsidies, take their handy-number jobs, takes all manner of handouts, so they won't agitate.

This is what I mean about context.

Sure we agree then , I know there is very little we can do other than pressurise governments and multinationals as to where and how they do business . A fading hope in todays world, but in the long run education and information will win out.

Tom Dunne

Here's an article from the BBC that puts things into perspective:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31986653

Spirogyra

Heard a Muslim speaker on a national radio station yesterday and he said that he would be surprised if there was any different opinions to his own within 'his community'...so this is what we mean by authority not being questioned? I mean there's how many Muslims in Ireland, how could one man assume himself to be able to speak for them all? it's as though freedom of though is not allowed within, that opinions are uniform.....

marienbad

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Here's an article from the BBC that puts things into perspective:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31986653

How does that show any perspective ?

katydid

Spirogyra wrote: »

Heard a Muslim speaker on a national radio station yesterday and he said that he would be surprised if there was any different opinions to his own within 'his community'...so this is what we mean by authority not being questioned? I mean there's how many Muslims in Ireland, how could one man assume himself to be able to speak for them all? it's as though freedom of though is not allowed within, that opinions are uniform.....

I heard a Waterford councillor yesterday saying that he was against gay marriage and that he was very sure that any Catholic would agree with him.

There are a lot of deluded people in the world.

Alias G

Why should Muslims be so offended by a depiction of Mohammed kissing another man anyway? Statistically speaking there is a 10% probability that he would have had same sex attraction to other men to some degree anyway. Why be offended by perfectly human desires after all?

Tom Dunne

Alias G wrote: »

Why should Muslims be so offended by a depiction of Mohammed kissing another man anyway? Statistically speaking there is a 10% probability that he would have had same sex attraction to other men to some degree anyway. Why be offended by perfectly human desires after all?

Do you think those of a strong Catholic faith would be offended by a depiction of Jesus kissing another man? Do you think the Pope would be offended?

Of course they would, so Muslims are no different in that respect.

Alias G

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Do you think those of a strong Catholic faith would be offended by a depiction of Jesus kissing another man? Do you think the Pope would be offended?

Of course they would, so Muslims are no different in that respect.

My point is that nobody should be offended of a caricature of two humans expressing normal human emotions or desires be they Islamic, Catholic or Jedi. I can see that some of the Charlie Hebdo stuff is in poor taste. But the piece I am referring to really shouldn't evoke such deep offence in any rational human being.

Tom Dunne

Alias G wrote: »

shouldn't evoke such deep offence in any rational human being.

Are you suggesting that rational thought and strongly held religious beliefs are compatible?

porsche959

marienbad wrote: »

As far as I am concerned I can do and say what I like as long as I am within the law.

Which law, as it changes from country to country.

It would be troubling if the only reason we all didn't go around killing each other was that it was against the law.

Alias G

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that rational thought and strongly held religious beliefs are compatible?

I am not suggesting that all religious people are not rational, but evidence indicates that analytical thinking generally leads to a rejection of religious belief as supported in studies such as this one.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.full

Tom Dunne

Alias G wrote: »

I am not suggesting that all religious people are not rational, but evidence indicates that analytical thinking generally leads to a rejection of religious belief as supported in studies such as this one.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/493.full

Fascinating article, I only skimmed it, but I'll read it later when I get a chance.

So I think you have answered your own question with that article. Additionally, I refer you to my previous comments on the fact that majority, if not all, of the Muslim world are developing nations. For me, this is a key factor in a lot of what we in the west perceive in the west as issues such as freedom of speech, subjugation of women and so on.

marienbad

porsche959 wrote: »

Which law, as it changes from country to country.

It would be troubling if the only reason we all didn't go around killing each other was that it was against the law.

quote the full post , the answer is there .

MrPudding

Tom Dunne wrote: »

Are you suggesting that rational thought and strongly held religious beliefs are compatible?

Are you suggesting they aren't?

MrP

Tom Dunne

MrPudding wrote: »

Are you suggesting they aren't?

MrP

The article above appears to support they hypothesis that they aren't.