On freedom of expression and religious defamation

[S.A.M.]

Deep down inside you are a Mesolithic pack-social creature like all of us. Your ethics are about the good of the pack because you cannot survive without them. We have successfully stretched our definition of "pack" to include ever-larger communities. But regardless of how far along a person is in that social evolution that we call "civilization," everyone has the instinct to trust and care about his pack. Only sociopaths lack it and I'm pretty sure you're not a sociopath.

That does not sound like me. I do what I do because that is what I expect to receive. If what I receive does not match my expectations, I may not retaliate but it does not mean I forget.

Therefore your ethics are almost certainly about your community and are not egocentric.That's the problem with the Golden Rule. We need to do unto others as they would have done unto themselves, not as we would have done unto ourselves

Nope, I'm very much an individualist. I don't do things because people expect them but because I want to. It might be a problem if my values were less acceptable in the society I lived in. I am a firm believer in the principle that you cannot control what other people do, only what you do (or say).

.And of course that's the problem with the civilization-updated redefinition of the Golden Rule. What if treating another person the way he wants to be treated conflicts with your own standard of how you want to be treated? What if a fundamentalist Christian literally cannot be comfortable and content if anyone living within a thousand miles of him is openly gay? What if it is a violation of his religion to not constantly proselytize it to others, even if the proselytism makes them miserable?

What if its an atheist who does not want to take communion, an atheist who does not want to worship at church, an atheist who thinks abortion is fine because cells are not identifiable as children so its not really murder if it doesn't look like a child? What if its a Buddhist to whom euthanasia is a sin? What if its a Muslim to whom desecrating the Quran is a sin?

Then in that case, one does what one does in a pluralistic society. Don't flaunt your sexuality and respect other peoples beliefs. In Asian society, we have a saying that criticism must be polite or it is counter productive. I find my reactions reflect my expectations and people find it easier to meet me halfway when they know I am willing to give them the same consideration.

Okay, what if an immigrant from the Philippines finds dog meat to be the absolute tastiest food in the world and he is miserable without it, and furthermore he gains the respect of his fellows by being able to serve dog meat at the church picnic, but the smell of dog meat makes everyone else in the city throw up and the mere awareness of it makes them weep?

What if its a vegetarian who won't eat with someone who is eating meat?

Who gets to decide these conflicts? You can't just say, "I always do what I think is right." That's not the way communities work.

Every individual decides what his comfort zone is and society adjsusts accordingly.

I think this is the post about the priests disrupting the funeral of a gay soldier. As far as I'm concerned, if you hold a funeral in a public place like a cemetery, then the rules of expression in public places prevail. No hate speech if it's not a Nazi rally, no shouting if it's not a bunch of kids acting crazy, but a peaceful expression should be allowed. If it's inside a church then the churches can make their own rules.

Next time a redneck priest dies, get all of your gay friends to dress up in their most outlandish outfits and go attend his funeral. America is just so not about decorum.

Not much difference between the two is there? If I were to reciprocate every insult I received with an insult of my own, how stable a society would I create?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

So its okay for the American government to practice torture if they outsource it?

You know what SAM. That was BS. I did not say that nor do I believe it. But good distraction. If you want to deal with the issue I raised fine, but that kind of manouver you just made there I do not respect.

 

[mikenostic]

I'm applying freedom of expression as a statute. Who exactly has freedom of expression? Who can defame religion and is not covered by it?

How does one define highly offensive?

Its why I wanted to see the judements passed by the ECHR.

Ahh. Ok. I see what you're saying. To answer your question, I feel that freedom of expression and what is offensive and what is not is very subjective. What you might find offensive, I may not.
Sam, you and I haven't always agreed on things. I'm sure I've said things to you that have offended you; some intentional and some not. But you always seem to take it in stride. By that I mean that you take the high road and don't overreact to certain things. And likewise you've made comments that haven't sat well with me. Some I've reacted to and some I just let go; I should actually not let any of it bother me.
What I'm saying is that people should be more inclined to let things go and not get so butt-hurt about it; it's even a work in progress for myself.*

*That is within reason, of course. While I'm all for free speech, I do believe that libel and slander laws are here for a reason. If a person or group is insulting/offending a person group for the sole reason to defame them or preventing their progress in something, I believe that should be controlled.
Like the Wilder movie for example; I don't think he's making that movie for the purpose of making Islam look bad. I think that is what he honestly believes, even though I don't agree with the way he's going about it.

 

[spidergoat]

Yeah, and I want to see the exceptions. What judgments for protecting Christianity did the ECHR pass? Why?

It's explained in the article, they allowed the UK to prosecute someone for blasphemy against Christianity, since that is the official religion of the UK, and it has been historically.

They did not pass similar considerations for Islam, in a case involving Rushdie.

 

[Tiassa]

Notes Around

For me, its all about myself. If I am uncomfortable, I don't do it. If it makes me mad, its because it offends me. If I feel its unjust, its because it would be unjust if it was done to me.

But why does something make you uncomfortable?

In considering that question, I would ask you to reexamine Fraggle's point about being a pack-social creature and the priority of community in your ethical structure. You might find something a little more familiar about such dimensions.

• • •​

That's slightly different than what I meant. Physically getting in someone's way is a bit different that just insulting someone in passing.

They don't have to impede your progress. I can walk backwards or sideways while shouting. The point is that some people will go out of their way to make sure you're hearing their specific hatred and harassment whatever you do.

And yet, somehow, telling them to shut the fuck up, that they are hatemongers, or that they are a disgrace to their own identity politic (e.g. Christian, Muslim, liberal, conservative, patriot, &c.) somehow diminishes a person who is being willfully and maliciously harassed?

Furthermore—

If someone gets in my face, I'll just sidestep them and go around them. If they sidestep to get back in my way, I'll sidestep one more time. If they sidestep and get in my way again, I will then push them out of my way(probably quite rudely and forcefully). And if they decide to physically react, they will wish they hadn't said one word to me to begin with.

—willfully escalating to violence apparently doesn't diminish you when you're being harassed?

If I call you names/insult you, you have the right to verbally insult me back. But as long as an altercation like that stays verbal, why not take the high road and just ignore it?

I'm surprised you can't tell the difference, Mike.

If you have every right to insult and harass me, I have every right to respond. And my response need not be an "insult". If the description of one's conduct (e.g. hatemongering) is insulting to a person, they ought to reconsider their conduct. Trying to protect and justify the bullies, haters, and harassers of society, as you have done, is purely an exercise in egocentrism, a reservation of your "rights" for the day you might wish to seek to harass and insult another person and expect them to simply keep their goddamn mouth shut.

Now this is for you Tiassa, the Rider Guard who has volunteered to help the families of the fallen servicemembers even take a peaceful stance ....

.... This is EXACTLY what I mean by taking the high road.

The Rider Guard is not applicable. It is much easier to "take the high road" when you are not, in a time of extreme emotional distress, the target of specific malice.

I might as well "take the high road" and do nothing about civil rights questions because I'm not black, or female. I don't ever intend to get married, so why should it matter to me whether gays can marry?

"The high road", as you would have it, seems to make apathy toward our fellow human beings quite easy. And while S.A.M. (#16) has at least a superficial point in the Nazi/fascist bit, I wonder about how much damage has already been done to civilized society and the human endeavor when "they" finally get around to coming for "you", as such. Or me.

• • •​

I am not sure who the 'we' you are referring to is.

We Americans. Perhaps we tend to think of ourselves as "more civilized" than other people around the world, and I certainly think rioting and threatening over political cartoons is a questionable venture at best, but the flip-side is a question of how long and to what degree we are willing to maintain our pretense of civility.

SAM has mentioned he atrocities connected with several American run prisons. Where does the CIA go when it wants to torture prisoners in the old, tried and true direct approach: Syria, Egypt...etc. Why? torture is just daily practice there. No need for the leaders to come out in favor of wishy washy washboarding. What about the regular torture of prisoners by Indian police? And so on. Where is the outrage over this?

There is outrage over those incidents. But, on the one hand, it's just not satisfactorily apparent to a bunch of American jingoists with their heads in the sand, and there's also a question of how people prioritize. Why does any one murder in your town matter any more than any other murder anywhere else? People tend to give more attention to what they perceive as mundane—e.g. murder—when it is closer to them. Thus, a murder two miles away causes people to worry more than, say, a murder 1,000 miles away. Then there are also the sensational factors. I would be surprised if you were unaware of these, or at least their general nature. A war in Iraq is kind of hard to ignore. Airplanes crashing into buildings are kind of hard to ignore. Torture in other countries is subject to all sorts of international outrage, but here in the states groups like Amnesty International are generally regarded as a bunch of annoying liberal pussies. Which leads back certain themes already afloat in the general discussion: my question of S.A.M.'s egocentrism, Mike's question of leaving the bullies to their business, and Fraggle's consideration of pack-social ethical structures stand out especially.

As if we must identify with one bully and sling our hate at the other ones.

Would you say that those who would denounce racism, religious discrimination, sexism, and other supremacist ideologies are just as hateful as the racists, religionists, sexists, &c.?

Consider the following fundamental argument in certain American political discussions:

• If I am not superior, you're violating my right to be equal.​

Would I be slinging hate at someone if I called that fundamental assertion illogical?

Because a lot of people who would form arguments around that principle are offended when told they're making an illogical argument.

As I told Mike, the response need not be an "insult". I can't help it if the white supremacists feel insulted and violated because they aren't allowed to have a pure white America. I can't help it if they're insulted that rahowa is irrational. I can't help it if Christians feel equality is oppressive. I can't help it if those who strive for the preservation and advancement of injustice feel diminished by justice.

What respect do you owe someone who lies to you? Don't be disgusted by their behavior, or else you'll be just as bad and wrong as them. Or so I'm told.

 

[MetaKron]

Full-grown adult humans can handle so-called defamation of their so-called religion. If their religion gave them any real mental security they would have no problem with what others said.

 

[Tiassa]

Um ....

Full-grown adult humans can handle so-called defamation of their so-called religion. If their religion gave them any real mental security they would have no problem with what others said.

You might be overlooking something about why they have religion in the first place, but that, I confess, is a discussion best reserved for another topic.

 

[S.A.M.]

But why does something make you uncomfortable?

In considering that question, I would ask you to reexamine Fraggle's point about being a pack-social creature and the priority of community in your ethical structure. You might find something a little more familiar about such dimensions.

Why does it have to be a priority of community? Why not a priority based on self preservation?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

We Americans. Perhaps we tend to think of ourselves as "more civilized" than other people around the world, and I certainly think rioting and threatening over political cartoons is a questionable venture at best, but the flip-side is a question of how long and to what degree we are willing to maintain our pretense of civility.

I am not defending our ideas of being more civilized. I found the thread had an air of 'as if now the US is the only country that approves torture.' I don't think it helps anyone to think that. And the fact that the CIA flew people to Muslim countries to facilitate torture is a part of the recent story.

A war in Iraq is kind of hard to ignore. Airplanes crashing into buildings are kind of hard to ignore. Torture in other countries is subject to all sorts of international outrage, but here in the states groups like Amnesty International are generally regarded as a bunch of annoying liberal pussies.

I am sure they are. But I see controversy and editorials condemning torture in a good number of the US newspapers. It is not like SAM is needed to raise the issue or even that it is dependent on THE NATION or what have you on the left. Liberals are upset and making noise. Didn't John McCain, the Republican candidate for the presidency even come out against this? My problem with the thread was, as I said, the air of 'now we have a country that approves torture'. I am quite sure we have done it before. We certainly taught the south american fascists how to do it efficiently, so I suppose we learned by doing before that in good John Dewey fashion. We are still sick.
But this sickness is international and the prison systems, treatment of political prisoners, for example, in Muslim countries is no role model. I am in no way using this an excuse. I think a unlilateral ban by each individual country is the moral thing to do. I just felt there was something disingenous about the thread.

Would you say that those who would denounce racism, religious discrimination, sexism, and other supremacist ideologies are just as hateful as the racists, religionists, sexists, &c.?

Gee, no. And I don't think I said anything that implied it. I am part of those first groups. What I disliked was selective criticism. I find it tiring to criticize those who abuse power, period, in a climate where some people are willing only to criticize those far away. I think it damages the debate and feeds right wing reactions to the criticism. I think it also comes off smug.

Consider the following fundamental argument in certain American political discussions:

• If I am not superior, you're violating my right to be equal.​

Would I be slinging hate at someone if I called that fundamental assertion illogical?

Nah. You are talking to someone else.

As I told Mike, the response need not be an "insult". I can't help it if the white supremacists feel insulted and violated because they aren't allowed to have a pure white America. I can't help it if they're insulted that rahowa is irrational. I can't help it if Christians feel equality is oppressive. I can't help it if those who strive for the preservation and advancement of injustice feel diminished by justice.

ibid.

What respect do you owe someone who lies to you? Don't be disgusted by their behavior, or else you'll be just as bad and wrong as them. Or so I'm told.

I agree with your position on this.

I would feel sick in my heart if I criticized, say, Singapore, for the problems with its penal system if I, as an American did not mention the faults of my own and take stands on these also. Perhaps SAM sees this as an American website or a Western one and is critical in other forums of her own country's use of torture and that in Muslim countries etc. Who knows? Perhaps she will mention that. I would respect that and understand her choice to focus only on the US.

I resent it when other people are not willing to take a world citizen stance.

 

[Norsefire]

I can't fully agree with you.
Freedom of speech should be as lenient as possible. People who advocate restrictions on freedom of speech just indicate to me that they have thin skin and get all butt-hurt when someone says something derogatory. How about being the better person when someone insults you by just walking on by and ignoring them? Is it really that difficult?
If someone insults you and you get offended, they win. If you rise above it and just ignore them, you win; you render them powerless.
Let's use Don Imus' 'knappy headed hoes' as an example. I'm just dumbfounded at how many people got all butt-hurt about one simple little comment that some old, decrepid jackass made. While I dislike Imus anyway, the backlash he received only empowered him more and made him more popular. Even though is more infamy than fame, a lot more people know who he is now.
What about the backlash from that Danish cartoon? Instead of having a moderate cleric ask for (not demand) an apology from that newspaper, they had to go out and start riots and burn buildings down. WTF??
If someone is insulting someone or something else, they are insulting them for the very purpose of offending them. And if that person being insulted gets all offended and butt-hurt, and raises a stink and starts whining about it, they play right into the insulters hands.

Firstly, people should not even be assholes to begin with. And if they are, they must accept the consequences. Saying "just walk away" is assuming that nothing can be done: instead, people should learn RESPECT and those who lack it should face the consequences for their own actions from those they insult.

 

[S.A.M.]

Firstly, people should not even be assholes to begin with. And if they are, they must accept the consequences. Saying "just walk away" is assuming that nothing can be done: instead, people should learn RESPECT and those who lack it should face the consequences for their own actions from those they insult.

you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

 

[mikenostic]

Firstly, people should not even be assholes to begin with. And if they are, they must accept the consequences. Saying "just walk away" is assuming that nothing can be done: instead, people should learn RESPECT and those who lack it should face the consequences for their own actions from those they insult.

You just don't get it, do you?
While I agree that you shouldn't be an asshole to begin with, there will always be assholes out there.
If we were face to face and I started calling you names, that's totally immature/unprofessional/rude of me. However, it's even even worse on your part should you react by verbally retaliating. Even moreso, you have NO right to physically retaliate.
What part of that do you not understand? Seriously?
If I called you a name, and you took a swing at me, YOU are in the wrong and I would have every right to defend myself and put you to the ground. I try to be polite, respectful and courteous to everyone, but I don't owe anybody respect. Respect is earned, not given or demanded. And if you think you can demand respect from people (which it seems that you do demand it), you are living in a fantasy world.
Yours is the exact mentality that causes conflicts to escalate. If someone verbally insults you, just leave it be. Who cares? Why do you have to be egotistical about it?

 

[spidergoat]

Norsefire is the new Baron Max.

 

[Norsefire]

You just don't get it, do you?
While I agree that you shouldn't be an asshole to begin with, there will always be assholes out there.
If we were face to face and I started calling you names, that's totally immature/unprofessional/rude of me. However, it's even even worse on your part should you react by verbally retaliating. Even moreso, you have NO right to physically retaliate.
What part of that do you not understand? Seriously?
If I called you a name, and you took a swing at me, YOU are in the wrong and I would have every right to defend myself and put you to the ground. I try to be polite, respectful and courteous to everyone, but I don't owe anybody respect. Respect is earned, not given or demanded. And if you think you can demand respect from people (which it seems that you do demand it), you are living in a fantasy world.
Yours is the exact mentality that causes conflicts to escalate. If someone verbally insults you, just leave it be. Who cares? Why do you have to be egotistical about it?

People who "verbally insult" me deserve what they get. Not that I am some superman, but generally anyone who is an asshole should expect what is coming.

Leaving them be doesn't correct their behavior. That's another reason we need children even beginning at 7 to receive a military discipline education.




Secondly, I was also talking about politics. If you are talking about a political message or spreading one yourself, this is one area of the world where spreading lies and hatred should be frowned upon and even forbidden. Being an asshole in politics is unacceptable.


Politicians should be formal, respectful, and to-the-point as well as open-minded.

The average person, on the other hand, should learn to keep his mouth shut or suffer the [state-imposed] consequences.

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Leaving them be doesn't correct their behavior. That's another reason we need children even beginning at 7 to receive a military discipline education.

You are generalizing wildly. Many people treat other people with respect and they never had military discipline, let alone starting at 7. Perhaps you needed it, but don't assume because of this others do.

The average person, on the other hand, should learn to keep his mouth shut or suffer the [state-imposed] consequences.

You must consier yourself above average. Is there a certificate?

 

[Norsefire]

You are generalizing wildly. Many people treat other people with respect and they never had military discipline, let alone starting at 7. Perhaps you needed it, but don't assume because of this others do.

I am not saying all need it, but for those who do, there should be much haste to bring it to them. Society should not tolerate those who show no respect or care.

You must consier yourself above average. Is there a certificate?

Why would I consider myself above average?

 

[iceaura]

I am not saying all need it, but for those who do, there should be much haste to bring it to them. Society should not tolerate those who show no respect or care.

If that society is a bunch of people like me, your lack of respect for our standards of adult behavior would get you into trouble on those grounds.

Fortunately, since we have adult standards of behavior rather than those grounds, you are permitted to run your mouth.

You'd miss not being able to do that, wouldn't you ?

 

[mikenostic]

People who "verbally insult" me deserve what they get. Not that I am some superman, but generally anyone who is an asshole should expect what is coming.

What exactly would you do to a person that called you names, tough guy?
What is so hard about ignoring someone who is verbally insulting you?
Now if the verbal becomes physical, then sure, fiercely defend yourself. But there's no reason to turn some harmless insults into something that could land you in jail or dead.

Secondly, I was also talking about politics. If you are talking about a political message or spreading one yourself, this is one area of the world where spreading lies and hatred should be frowned upon and even forbidden. Being an asshole in politics is unacceptable.

Politicians should be formal, respectful, and to-the-point as well as open-minded.

There's where I agree with you, but that is what falls under the libel and slander that I was talking about.
But look what happens when politicians start degrading one another... especially during a campaign. All it does is turns into a mudfight. It shows a lack of professionalism on both sides. One candidate slams the other, then the other slams the original in return because their pride and ego won't let them be one-upped by the other. The only thing they are accomplishing is showing everyone how unprofessional they are. Instead of a candidate emphasizing their own positive attributes to gain popularity, they try to expose the opponents' negative qualities to make themselves look better. It always backfires. Then the public is stuck with having to choose the lesser of the two evils instead of the truly better candidate.

The average person, on the other hand, should learn to keep his mouth shut or suffer the [state-imposed] consequences.

What 'state-imposed' consequences are you talking about, and how on earth does that correlate with the average person?

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Is it really that difficult to ignore someone who is insulting you? I do it all of the time because of all of the sexist jokes and insults I get at school because I study a male dominant field. I just ignore them and they stop. They don't get a rise out of me so I guess the insults loose their flare. I tell the kids I watch to do the same thing when someone is teasing them. If its only verbal, I tell them to ignore whoever is bullying them and it hasn't backfired yet. Respect should be given to everyone even people who don't deserve it, because when you disrespect someone else you also may loose the respect of others.

 

[Norsefire]

What exactly would you do to a person that called you names, tough guy?
What is so hard about ignoring someone who is verbally insulting you?
Now if the verbal becomes physical, then sure, fiercely defend yourself. But there's no reason to turn some harmless insults into something that could land you in jail or dead.

Sure I'd ignore them.......until they begin insulting my nation, for instance, that is the final straw


However, I've already said, they should either keep their mouth shut or get what is coming [from whoever they insult, whether you or me or anyone else].


Answer me this: if we do "ignore" them, how will they learn to stop?

Or, here is an idea: military discipline adult classes

There's where I agree with you, but that is what falls under the libel and slander that I was talking about.
But look what happens when politicians start degrading one another... especially during a campaign. All it does is turns into a mudfight. It shows a lack of professionalism on both sides. One candidate slams the other, then the other slams the original in return because their pride and ego won't let them be one-upped by the other. The only thing they are accomplishing is showing everyone how unprofessional they are. Instead of a candidate emphasizing their own positive attributes to gain popularity, they try to expose the opponents' negative qualities to make themselves look better. It always backfires. Then the public is stuck with having to choose the lesser of the two evils instead of the truly better candidate.

That, but more importantly political messages; when people attempt to spread a certain "belief", by distorting facts and having much bias, and especially encouraging people to hate or even get violent, that should under no circumstances be tolerated.

What 'state-imposed' consequences are you talking about, and how on earth does that correlate with the average person?

The classes idea seems great, doesn't it?