Iran trys to get holland to ban dutch mp's film about the "violence provoking koran"

That's exactly what I said, YOU want to decide how they should make films.
Click to expand...

I think there's a fine line between telling others what your religion is about, and having others insult and scrutinize it for you. When does freedom of speech become hate speech?

Then, without actually seeing the film, you have absolutely nothing to say about it, dickhead.
Click to expand...

"Violence provoking Koran" film? What do you think it's about, dickmuncher? Do I need to connect the dots for you, dickeater?
 
Guys, relax.

But as I said, there's a difference between a film that informs you about Islam, all the facts, history, etc, and a film that offers lots of bullshit and encourages you to hate
 
Norsefire said:
Well I am not surprised when super angry people turn violent, because most of them do.
I am not saying they don't have anger issues, but that angry people can turn violent so don't make them angry.





Yes, the Muslims turn violent, but the people behind the mockery ARE TRYING TO get them to turn violent. That's instigation, they are TRYING TO START A FIGHT. And don't say otherwise, because anyone going into a country and mocking the population and burning the flag can't be looking for anything else.
Click to expand...
a) I have to think about the way the Buddhists reacted when Muslims destroyed their 2500 year old statues. Which were for some, the most significant religious artifact on the face of the earth.

Really says something about the two people. I mean Buddhists and Muslims are both from India - but the Buddhists seem so much more peaceful and civilized in their response to an attack on their beleif and sacred religious founder. Really says something to me. It's not culture, it's not genetic, it's religious. One is peaceful, one is when things go it's way but isn't when they don't.

b) I don't think that the film maker is trying to make Muslims angry. I think the film maker couldn't give two craps about Muslims other than he wants them and their religion out of The Netherlands. I think he thinks he's educating non-Muslims about the horrors of allowing Islam in the Netherlands. I really think his target audience is non-Muslims.
 
I have a question:

Is it possible that the Qur'an has some intolerant concepts in it? Is it possible that teaching these concepts is bad for some people? Is it OK to make a movie about those concepts?

Michael
 
Norsefire said:
Guys, relax.

But as I said, there's a difference between a film that informs you about Islam, all the facts, history, etc, and a film that offers lots of bullshit and encourages you to hate
Click to expand...
I agree. This is why I really really wish that religious History was taught in school. That why all children, including Muslims and Xistans can see exactly where their religions came from. Then when they go to the Mosque or the Church or watch a movie - they'll already know enough to be able to call bull shit on the bull shit.

M
 
Michael said:
I agree. This is why I really really wish that religious History was taught in school. That why all children, including Muslims and Xistans can see exactly where their religions came from. Then when they go to the Mosque or the Church or watch a movie - they'll already know enough to be able to call bull shit on the bull shit.

M
Click to expand...

If they choose not to believe in it.
 
Kadark said:
This isn't a one-way road for most Muslims, I must remind you. I don't care what faith (or lack thereof) in particular we're discussing - in no circumstance should people be able to insult and spread hate against another religion (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

Who are you to proclaim this? In the United States, we certainly do have the freedom to insult anyone's religion. Southpark has episodes that do so regularly. I imagine both Scientologists and Mormons were very upset by the episodes that focused on their dogmatic nonsense, and Christians get slammed regularly. George H.W. Bush stated that he didn't think atheists were "good Americans". Also, what constitutes a provocation is entirely subjective. The most fragile among us do not get the privilege of dictating what everyone else gets to read, watch, or listen to. Those who do not like it are free to change the channel.
 
I'd say provocating is anything intended to cause a violent reaction OR spread a hateful, ignorant message
 
kadark said:
I think there's a fine line between telling others what your religion is about, and having others insult and scrutinize it for you. When does freedom of speech become hate speech?
Click to expand...
One sign might be when it is used to defend riot and murder directed at strangers, simply because those strangers are members of some group.

Has it slipped notice that defending such touchy and violent overreaction validates many of the "insults" found objectionable ?
 
Norsefire said:
I'd say provocating is anything intended to cause a violent reaction OR spread a hateful, ignorant message
Click to expand...

Well, that's great - but completely irrelevant. Protesters who are burning the U.S. flag are being provocative, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so. If someone were to witness it, and become so angry that they assaulted one of the protesters, they would be quickly arrested and sent to jail. Provocation isn't illegal here, but assault and/or murder certainly are. And feeling strongly about something, be it a burning flag or a Koran, is no defense here or any other civilized country.
 
Repo Man said:
Well, that's great - but completely irrelevant. Protesters who are burning the U.S. flag are being provocative, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so. If someone were to witness it, and become so angry that they assaulted one of the protesters, they would be quickly arrested and sent to jail. provocation isn't illegal here, but assault and/or murder certainly are. And feeling strongly about something, be it a burning flag or a Koran, is no defense here or any other civilized country.
Click to expand...

Instigating a fight isn't that a misdemeanor?
Burning the flag if not for ceremonial reasons is illegal in the US right?
 
A question, why does a film producer think that its OK to insult the greatest percentage of the worlds population and possibly get his own people killed

Is this illegal?
Probably not but it depends on the discrimination and anti hatred laws

Is this immoral?
Yes, i hate to say it but it is. It shows a HUGE lack of ethics to think that getting people killed for a film is OK because its showing "free speech"

As far as i know free speech was invented for protection against POLITICAL tirrany, it was never meant to be a vehicle to insult huge numbers of people on religious grounds
 
Come on Norsefire,

This is one short step from "Wearing mini-skirts "caused" some guys to attack and rape these girls because they were like fresh meat... bla bla bla...."

Where does it end??? Now we ban miniskirts!?!?
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!

People have to accept that if they live in the West that's the way it is and that is the way we like it. Thomas Jefferson wrote his own edited version of the Bible for Christ sakes (taking out the bits he thought stupid). I am 100% sure it pissed off some people.

So what? Surely you are not suggesting we can NOT print an edited version of the Qur'an??!?! Because it might offend Someone?? Sorry but that goes against the actions of the very founders of our Republic!

Michael
 
Actually Norsefire, I think you have to give in on this one. Even you agree people have to have the right to say things that may piss other people off.

We might not like what other people say but that's too bad, we ALL have to live with it. I don't like monotheism - but that's too bad for me. Right.

M
 
Asguard said:
A question, why does a film producer think that its OK to insult the greatest percentage of the worlds population and possibly get his own people killed
Click to expand...

What some may view as a deliberate insult, others may view as a statement of fact. Is there an objective standard to measure against?
 
i havent seen the film so i wont comment. Its also why its hard to write laws relating to this issue. However if we take a hypothetical example say the catholic church and pedifilia

Now if i sat down to write a movie (or book) that said there have been cases of sexual abuse in the catholic church that would be the truth. If however i went on to say that this means all priests are pedifiles and all high level clergy agree with there actions that would be defimation. Films are very good at manipulating things to suit there own message. What was his message?
What was the message the news paper was sending when they chose to reprint cartoons which were oviously ofencive and DID put peoples lives at risk

Our countries censor things all the time. The US seem to find sex and the naked body to be offencive and so censor this (just look at the sarah connor cronicals first ep), the Australian goverment censors material they feel has the potential to "radicalise young muslims". Is it so wrong that the Iran asked a fellow goverment to remove a film that they felt was offencive to there citizans? No, they didnt go to war over it, they used the diplomatic aproch and more power to them.

I was surprised that the village involved in Borat were the ONLY people in that movie that DIDNT sue the film and they had the greatest case for it. After all the US uni students who behavior was apsolutly discusting DID sign a releace to be filmed and still sued the producer

As i said wether the film was illegal was a matter for the goverment involved. The moral question as to wether given the current tentions and the fact that it could be highly offencive should have made it? I dont think that was a very moral decision but thats HIS choice to be seen as a moral or imoral person
 
asguard said:
As far as i know free speech was invented for protection against POLITICAL tirrany, it was never meant to be a vehicle to insult huge numbers of people on religious grounds
Click to expand...
Those are often the same thing - and they definitely were the same thing when the free speech notion was first codified.

If you want to be able to criticise the Muslim religion in terms and in ways many of its adherents find offensive, you are going to have to deal with them taking offense. Since no sane person wants to put an entire religion and its adherents off limits for ridicule and disrespect, let alone legitimate criticism, the question is how to deal with the offended Muslim.

And the answer depends on how the offended Muslim behaves, and what you can in fact do.

One possibility is education - attempting to teach the offended Muslim about the necessity of taking it as well as giving it,in a modern adult society. You can see the likelihood of success here, but that would really be the best option all around.

A little better immigration control might be a reasonable option as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top