Debate : Freedom of speech

[neorichieb1971]

The world is now a smaller place. The people of Islam can see what the west is doing by watching youtube or reading facebook.

If your religion is insulted by only 1% of its members, thats an army.

If I drew and sold pictures of your moms/sisters taking it up the ass I think you would be equally offended. I have doubts you would be saying "its your freedom of speech". I wouldn't expect to be gunned down but I would be expecting a punch in the face.

Lets not forget that where we think the "Below the belt" line should be isn't always where someone else thinks it is.

My mom and sister are things that actually exist.

Religion is based around imaginary things. Let's say I decide to believe the sky is green, and start to take great offense from anyone suggesting otherwise. Should everyone just STFU about it being blue in case they upset me? It's ridiculous.

In other news - French police have stormed the terrorists, blown the fuckers away and saved the remaining hostages. Best possible outcome. Rainbow 6 level righteousness.

What about Xmas Tree's in schools? The western governments state that Xmas Tree's in schools is offensive to some faiths so we cannot put them up. So indirectly causing people insult is just enough to stop it happening. I consider that a better example of "our" lack of freedom of speech. Yet when someone directly intends to offend someone else it is deemed "tough shit".. move along, move along... I don't understand.. I really don't.

[trap15]

The reason Christmas trees are not allowed in schools is because the government and school systems are supposed to be secular. Christmas trees are a religious matter, and thus not allowed in schools. They're still allowed to be owned by private citizens, there's nothing about free speech in the matter at all.

[Rob]

I'm glad we're using our thinking time for such important things.

[Mischief Maker]

What about Xmas Tree's in schools? The western governments state that Xmas Tree's in schools is offensive to some faiths so we cannot put them up. So indirectly causing people insult is just enough to stop it happening. I consider that a better example of "our" lack of freedom of speech. Yet when someone directly intends to offend someone else it is deemed "tough shit".. move along, move along... I don't understand.. I really don't.

This thread is getting about as petty as the hidden sexist agenda of public bathroom lines.

The answer, quite simply, is that there is no universal rule being applied uniformly. It's a case-by-case ad-hoc application of random rules. The fact that there is no God means there is no absolute morality to compare against.

[Ed Oscuro]

Let's consult the World Wide Web on these important matters!!

WEB SURFIN' TIME!

[Lord Satori]

The fact that there is no God

lol, oh boy. Here it comes...

[nosorrow]

^ yeah...

[austere]

.

[neorichieb1971]

I agree that Western intervention has only added more volatile ingredients to an already explosive pot.

So to conclude then.. The world is only happy if we continually piss each other off. Its a major past time that nobody can live without. Meanwhile those offended are expected to suck it up and suck it up good. In fact they should ask for more and feel really happy about it. If in effect there are people pushed over the edge, we will label them terrorists. They are victims of caring too much about something.. Because we should only care just less than enough that would push us over the edge and that goes for everyone, period.

So the death toll for this freedom now stands at something like 30 people, en-counting. I hope those 30 people are in heaven cussing the fuck out those 2 shits across the wall.. probably lobbing cartoon missiles their way too.. Just the thought makes me smile.

Thanks for the debate everyone

[BIL]

Anyone who'd murder over some retarded cartoon is pretty far "over the edge" to begin with. Why make excuses for this infantile horse shit?

[neorichieb1971]

I doubt its over the cartoon BIL. The cartoonists were just easy targets to make a statement. More than likely there are 1000 reasons they did what they did.

[BIL]

I doubt its over the cartoon BIL.

richie PLS. You know how your post reads. If some cunts drove me out of my home I'd want to kill them too. Most would. You weren't talking about occupation, you're talking about toons that make some unfortunate people legitimately go fucking bananas and bay for blood. There's no "edge" to cross for that mindset, it's inherently fucked. "Terry next door's a lovely bloke, honest, but he had to disembowel Ms. Brown after that dreadful cartoon she drew!"

And a whole lot of religious peeps would disagree with you re: motive, or at least heartily endorse the pretext of the attack as sufficient. They'd quite possibly suggest taking my kafir head for referring to the noble endeavour as infantile horse shit while they're at it. :[

[Immryr]

good article here. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexand ... 42684.html

[austere]

Anyone who'd murder over some retarded cartoon is pretty far "over the edge" to begin with. Why make excuses for this infantile horse shit?

When it comes to terror, the objective of the terrorist is not to commit massive damage (though sometimes they do like in 9/11), the objective is to get the target to overreact (again, as the US did after 9/11). They want the target to overcommit to a reactionary step that would be their downfall, most preferably a violent one to drive up their recruitment. So in reality it's probably less to do with the comics and more to do with what reaction we choose.

In my view, and I understand most likely won't share it with me, the right reaction is to loosen gun control laws, get everyone armed and trained like in Switzerland and remove any kind of "hate law" without exception. When everyone is mocking Muslim extremists everywhere, on the streets and on the airwaves, they are effectively destroyed. To paraphrase Alinsky's rule #5, ridicule is the most potent weapon in man's arsenal. And ridicule is all Muslim extremists deserve, from their antiquated traditions to their breeding patterns that seem to produce an endless stream of human bombs. With an armed public prepared to protect themselves from savages, they will have to live with the ridicule, reform or go back to where they feel they will fit in better. Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself here, in order to put an end to terrorism the first step is to stop funding it.

[HUmar]

good article here. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/alexand ... 42684.html

I'm sorry but this is a pretty bad article.

It seems the journalist obliterates the last thousand years of French history and how the country was created.

You can be whatever you want but first of all, you're French. Unlike UK or USA, France doesn't like communities. Not only for religious reasons but also for identity reasons. School shouldn't teach you religious things or another language than French as your first language, these things are private.
These things are written in the first and second articles of French Constitution.

Also, this was made to guarantee Equality. It can be hard to find a job here if your skin is too tanned, you have a big nose or you just have a foreign name. Yeah, in 2015 we're still there... That's pitiful...

Complaining about these things is just a huge misunderstanding on how the country deals with it's problems.
As if I said that American people shouldn't have the right to bear arms. That's a huge part of American history and I can understand why people there are so attached to this right.

[Aleksei]

Just glanced through the first couple of comments, and I have to say this, a publisher should keep sexual imagery and crudeness in the porn shop, not a newspaper.

[BIL]

When it comes to terror, the objective of the terrorist is not to commit massive damage (though sometimes they do like in 9/11), the objective is to get the target to overreact (again, as the US did after 9/11). They want the target to overcommit to a reactionary step that would be their downfall, most preferably a violent one to drive up their recruitment. So in reality it's probably less to do with the comics and more to do with what reaction we choose.

Oh absolutely, I do accept there being deeper motives to the attack beyond the surface "avenge teh prophet" slogan. By excuse I meant the notion of benign, reasonable individuals with an offense threshold that demands murderous retribution once tripped by hurtful speech. That's just a latent fanatic. Where they're concerned, I certainly hope the mockery does continue. As you suggest, adapt or die will kick in eventually.

[Mischief Maker]

When it comes to terror, the objective of the terrorist is not to commit massive damage (though sometimes they do like in 9/11), the objective is to get the target to overreact (again, as the US did after 9/11). They want the target to overcommit to a reactionary step that would be their downfall, most preferably a violent one to drive up their recruitment. So in reality it's probably less to do with the comics and more to do with what reaction we choose.

I think you're giving the terrorists more credit than they deserve. Terrorism is along the same lines as taking hostages to get demands met, the only difference is they want everyone in the world to feel like a hostage (ie. living in terror). They went after a high profile target to guarantee they got a lot of press, so more people would feel like hostages to their group. If some nobody teenager's 'zine published the exact same cartoon, said teenager would be perfectly safe.

But if you've got people saying, "well they were kinda asking for it by publishing cartoons that would annoy these groups" then you're taking it for granted that we are, to some extent, already their hostages and if we just keep our heads down and do what we're told we might get out of this alive.

As for 9/11, if you do some research on the Project for a New American Century, you'll see that Bush jr's braintrust had been itching for years to invade Iraq. 9/11 just provided, maybe not the exact excuse they were waiting for, but close enough that after an invasion of Afghanistan they could wiggle their way in. It wasn't a hasty drunken decision made in the heat of the moment due to slick terrorist manipulation, it was a cold and cynical move made by connected people who weren't smart enough to see their plan to completion.

[austere]

I think you're giving the terrorists more credit than they deserve. Terrorism is along the same lines as taking hostages to get demands met, the only difference is they want everyone in the world to feel like a hostage (ie. living in terror). They went after a high profile target to guarantee they got a lot of press, so more people would feel like hostages to their group. If some nobody teenager's 'zine published the exact same cartoon, said teenager would be perfectly safe.

Perhaps the ones who carried it out didn't think it through too much, but the ones who planned it certainly have. What do you think is better grounds for terrorism in France, a country that is fairly tolerant of regular (not extremist) Muslims (as France was with a 70+% positive image of Muslims prior to the attack), or a France that is hostile to Muslims?

Terrorism is a 1000 year old strategy (at least) and the key is a cold dispassionate response that denies the main objective of the adversary. Figuring exactly out who the adversary is and what they want, is the key, however.

But if you've got people saying, "well they were kinda asking for it by publishing cartoons that would annoy these groups" then you're taking it for granted that we are, to some extent, already their hostages and if we just keep our heads down and do what we're told we might get out of this alive.

Of course none of the reasonable among us can accept the idea that, should a group be offended by what we say (SJW/Islamists/Scientologists/whatever), we should shut up or face "consequences". If that's the freedom we are to enjoy, then we may as well all live in prisons.

As for 9/11, if you do some research on the Project for a New American Century, you'll see that Bush jr's braintrust had been itching for years to invade Iraq. 9/11 just provided, maybe not the exact excuse they were waiting for, but close enough that after an invasion of Afghanistan they could wiggle their way in. It wasn't a hasty drunken decision made in the heat of the moment due to slick terrorist manipulation, it was a cold and cynical move made by connected people who weren't smart enough to see their plan to completion.

Oh don't get me wrong, I agree with you completely, though at the time I was young and wasn't complete aware of what was going on and the attacks enraged me (and probably most people around the world) so I cheered on the invasion of Afghanistan. That was a mistake as I realised by the time the Iraq war was ramping up in 2002. When I say "we", I mean the western populations, not so much the government. In a sense, they are an adversary to our freedom. Just look at the PATRIOT act in the US and the various police-state acts here in Australia. Accepting those after a terrorist attack "for security" was our overreaction, just like accepting a senseless war against a barren wasteland in Afghanistan.

[neorichieb1971]

These terrorists live among us and most of the time we cannot tell who they are. I don't know about you but all these reports about the terrorists being "well known and documented" sends different signals to me. On the one hand it states the French secret service is extremely lazy to follow up with these people and the 2nd is that the media are flat out lying.

Austere, I am not supporting of these people. Ultimately we have a few choices

1) Eradicate the whole muslim population
2) Try and find a neutral ground between us that dilutes our so called freedoms
3) Keep pissing them off until the weak ones show their real selves and hope the collateral damage is low.


I don't know any other option.. please elaborate on what other options there are!!!!

[emphatic]

I liked this approach: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 30289.html

Perhaps making it illegal to not report people close to you with radical tendencies to the authorities, be it fascism, Jihad-ism, animal rights radicals etc, would be useful in preventing shit happening?

[Xyga]

The French secret services, anti-terrorist agencies, police, and even the military, lack men, skills, and funds, and worse every new government in power reforms the whole shit every time.
There have been some progress in terms of technological surveillance and several new anti-terror laws over the years, but mostly for shows, and reforming is extremely slow.
Basically cutting costs where it's immediately useful, and spending on new things that aren't yet efficient.

[neorichieb1971]

I liked this approach: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 30289.html

Perhaps making it illegal to not report people close to you with radical tendencies to the authorities, be it fascism, Jihad-ism, animal rights radicals etc, would be useful in preventing shit happening?

I like the idea. My feeling is that its a breach of freedom of speech in the other direction though. Recruiting someone doesn't necessarily mean they will commit murder or terrorism. However, I am all for it if the death toll is lessened.

Science tells you if suppress something too much it explodes eventually. Not sure of its long term effects.

[emphatic]

My feeling is that its a breach of freedom of speech in the other direction though. Recruiting someone doesn't necessarily mean they will commit murder or terrorism.

If they don't have an exit plan, it can be extremely hard to get out planned attacks. At first it might seem like a fun adventure for these individuals, for once being part of something bigger than the day to day life on the outside of the secular community. Finally, you have someone to talk to, look up to etc. Will you turn your back on your new "family" even if the tasks they decide will be good for the cause or whatever?

[emphatic]

The French secret services, anti-terrorist agencies, police, and even the military, lack men, skills, and funds, and worse every new government in power reforms the whole shit every time.
There have been some progress in terms of technological surveillance and several new anti-terror laws over the years, but mostly for shows, and reforming is extremely slow.
Basically cutting costs where it's immediately useful, and spending on new things that aren't yet efficient.

If this is referring to my post above yours, perhaps some sort of tip hotline with rewards would be more cost effective? Here in Sweden, I don't think a manhunt the size that took place in France over the last few days would be possible, I imagine our police force is even smaller.

[gameoverDude]

Three down! The woman that's still on the run needs to go down hard for working with those guys in messing with civilians.

I've heard about Muslim terrorists being shot with bullets covered in pork lard and blood, then buried under pig skins and/or guts. It dates back to 1911 with John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. Love this idea. Per their beliefs, they don't reach paradise if buried in pork. It is "haram" (unclean) to them. They fear a pig like a vampire fears a sack of garlic.

Even if Charlie Hebol didn't "provoke" them, they'd probably have found some other trigger.
Being called terrorists probably is moralizing to these heathens. So, maybe the media should try just calling them murderers or thugs instead.

[Xyga]

The French secret services, anti-terrorist agencies, police, and even the military, lack men, skills, and funds, and worse every new government in power reforms the whole shit every time.
There have been some progress in terms of technological surveillance and several new anti-terror laws over the years, but mostly for shows, and reforming is extremely slow.
Basically cutting costs where it's immediately useful, and spending on new things that aren't yet efficient.

If this is referring to my post above yours, perhaps some sort of tip hotline with rewards would be more cost effective? Here in Sweden, I don't think a manhunt the size that took place in France over the last few days would be possible, I imagine our police force is even smaller.

Nope to neorichie's post because he mentioned our secret service / CT. They did mobilize an impressive force this time of course, but in practice their administrations are kind of slow, as mentioned most certainly because of the several cuts and reforms, or maybe they're badly managed but I can't confirm that part.
Anyway our security system is made of many, many, MANY agencies and offices and sub-offices, since 2011 and a round of reforms at least eleven managed by both the army and police, and I'm not even counting the many sub-agencies inside the police and gendarmery, you could add maybe five or eight more layers but that also depends on the local/districts administrations (we've experienced these past years a round of decentralization reforms to cut costs that scattered responsibilities and funds around)
All-in-all it's an administrative galaxy mostly made of under-manned and underpowered groups, thus slow and weak.
I'm not the pro-security pro-military type, but as we pay these people with our taxes money, I sure would like the whole thing to be more efficient. It's tiring to hear every time the governement representatives say to the press "we knew about terror threats and the individuals, but we messed up, sorry".

EDIT: this article says it all, but of course it's in French: http://www.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/soc ... 39369.html
One guy says to the journalist they're submerged and we would need 40,000 men to do the intelligence/CT job. Since they can't do everything at max efficiency they do lists of more or less dangerous people, and those they haven't heard about in years and are no longer under close surveillance... go down to 'lesser threats' lists. Kouachi and Coulibaly were pretty high on the lists years ago, then after they were released from jail they went down, and down, until all real surveillance stopped.

[ED-057]

No question that this happens (it's frankly a national disgrace that we let places like Saudi Arabia get away with as much as they do on the human rights front while demonizing others), but as I've said elsewhere the religion itself is not the direct cause of the government's crackdowns

I agree but what I'm saying is, we shouldn't be judging them based on their religion anyway. We should be judging them based on their actions. And some of those actions are cause for concern.

I and others of a similar mindset were accused by one of my nation's own leaders, not too terribly long ago, of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" by disagreeing with his administration's policies

The thing that bothers me about this is not so much that he said it, but that the corporate media reports on these soundbites as if they were anything more than transparent bullshit.

Ultimately we have a few choices

1) Eradicate the whole muslim population
2) Try and find a neutral ground between us that dilutes our so called freedoms
3) Keep pissing them off until the weak ones show their real selves and hope the collateral damage is low.

None of those are reasonable choices. Here is what I would propose
step 1: don't freak out and lose our shit over incidents like this.
step 2: cease bombing/occupying/shipping weapons to/funding "rebels" in/otherwise fucking up other countries
step 2b: regain the moral authority by making western officials who perpetrated war crimes stand trial (like this will ever happen
step 3: win via a culture war of attrition. In other words, blast them with cheap consumer goods and western media until they become fat and lazy like us, and forget all about religion.

[BryanM]

But that would require unsubjugating the subjugated. Very small profit margins, in that.

Finding out more about what goes on in our rape/murder/torture dungeons is always fun. You think you know it all, but there's always more and it's always worse. Did you know we fed people up the butt in Gitmo? I didn't know that. America is a very educational place sometimes.

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

We don't have freedom of speech because we can't say anything we want as certain things are illegal and certain things will get you condemned.

It is good having illegal speech banned since that is mostly threats.

It is bad having current fad social liberalism pointing a gun at your head preventing a person from having a legitimate opinion about so many things.