The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > I believe in free speech but....

I believe in free speech but....

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
There is a genre of punditry that I call "I believe in free speech but…." The but then effectively negates the professed belief in free speech.

An example of the genre is Julian Baggini's recent column in the Guardian newspaper. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/03/art.religion

Let’s suppose that Australia has (at long last) a bill of rights that guarantees free speech. Which of the following should be protected by a free speech guarantee in a bill of rights? Which should be prohibited?

(1)Denying the Holocaust

(2)We have all heard of Serrano’s “Piss Christ”* It is a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a yellow fluid. Catholics especially protested when it was displayed in an Australian gallery. The artistic "elite" defended the gallery vociferously. Well how about “Piss Torah?” Torah scrolls are expensive but with photoshop all things are possible.

(3)In the US burning the American flag is protected free speech under the first amendment. How about burning a Torah scroll?

(4)A statue of Jesus with an impressive erection.**

For the record I think ALL the above should be protected by a free speech code.

*See: http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423908876_165080_andres-serrano.jpg

**See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/religion.art
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 4 September 2008 3:52:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steve,

How about Mohammed with an erection?

Or Mohammed immersed in urine?

We already know how that's going to turn out, don't we?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 5 September 2008 9:11:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L

The question is:

Should the 4 examples I described in my original post be protected by a free speech guarantee in a bill of rights?

This eccentric old Jew says YES TO ALL 4!

What do you think, Paul.L?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 9:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about a Davidic Star dipped in urine? Or a torah?

Extremists of all the Abrahamic religions are nutjobs. While I don't claim exhaustive knowledge, I can't think of an example of a polytheist or atheist religion or philosophy that would object to mistreatment of a religious symbol with the same vituperation. Even the Hindus, famously volatile as some parts of India may be, are rarely moved to much anger by such acts.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 5 September 2008 9:26:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes to all four.

It's actually our anti-religious vilification laws that are cramping our free speech. If Polycarp and his Muslim or Jewish or Scientologist equivalents are allowed to irritate people outside the State Library in Melbourne, then the rest of us have the right to make fun of the ridiculous things they believe.
Posted by Veronika, Friday, 5 September 2008 10:11:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll see Steven's four and Paul's two, and raise the stakes by adding non-pornographic artistic depictions of naked children.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 5 September 2008 11:31:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with CJ Morgan, excepting, I find it hard to draw the subjective line between what is ‘pornographic’ and what is not.

I remember the problems Richard Neville & Co (little Aussie battlers) got into in UK with “OZ” I remember seeing a copy of it at the time and whilst Neville & Co were prosecuted and conv icted, it was bounced on appeal, partly due to misdirection of the jury by the judge.

OZ could be called “pornographic”, it was (imho) not very “artistic”.

Would I rather see Neville & co “free” to express their heart felt ramblings?

You betcha

Because I am “free” to read, perv on or ignore their output.

I further agree with Veronika, anti-vilification laws are, by definition, a puerile attempt at curtailing free speech.

“Free” speech goes too far only when there it forms the basis of a libel or slander case.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 5 September 2008 11:51:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL CJ MORGAN,

You've cost me ten bucks. My wife said you would bring up Henson. We bet on it. I lost.

Bearing in mind that you have not answered my question, I'll answer yours with yet another question. After all I'm Jewish and that's what we do – answer questions with questions.

Is the manner in which 11 year old Olympia Nelson was displayed likely to cause her harm either now or in the future?

I do not know the answer to that question. I hope you will have some evidence to back up whatever answer you give.

I'll throw in another question.

You've defined Henson's photos as "non-pornographic." That begs the question. What is pornography? Are Henson's images "non-pornographic?"

It seems to me that many of the people who objected to Henson's photos do so precisely on the grounds that they are indeed pornographic.

And here's another question CJ MORGAN. (I'm on a roll)

Should kiddie porn manufactured using computer graphics be permitted?

The argument against kiddie porn is that it damages the children involved. But no children need be involved if computer graphics are used.

What about depictions of humans and animals having sex. How about a statue of a woman fornicating with a dog?

For what it's worth here are my views:

--Computer generated kiddie porn and depictions of bestiality should be protected by a free speech code.

--I have a feeling there is a significant potential for harm to the children Henson uses as his models. This becomes more a case of protecting children than censorship.

VERONIKA

I agree with your post.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 12:01:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought it was pretty clear from my first post that I not only agreed that Steven's examples should be protected by a free speech code, but that other controversial examples should be too. I'd include Paul's hypotheticals, and I agree with Veronika about the Victorian religious vilification laws. I also think that holocaust deniers and Islamophobes should be allowed to air their hateful views if they wish.

In response to Steven's flurry of further questions - I very much doubt that any negative consequences at all would flow to Olympia from her involvement in that teacup storm, either from her initial modelling role or from the publication of her image in Art Monthly.

Child pornography is already defined in law and is illegal. That is one of the few areas, other than libel and defamation (as Col pointed out) where I would agree with limitations on freedom of speech. Neither Bill Henson's images nor the Art Monthly cover featuring Olympia is pornographic under Australian law.

With respect to computer-generated images that purport to depict anything, I don't think that there's sufficient grounds to ban them unless some other law is contravened in their production. In the case of "kiddie porn" that consists entirely of graphic images and which hasn't involved real minors, while the images may indeed be offensive to most people I can't see why they shouldn't be available to those miserable adults who might wish to view them.

Indeed, they might even be therapeutic.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 5 September 2008 12:23:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STEVEN
If the question is should these items (thus far) to 10million be SPECIFIC exclusions the practical answer is NO.

Should we preclude acts that would reasonably offend the answer is YES.
I see no reason why anyone should be able to publicly impose their lack of sensitivity on others.
e.g. the "artist" who cut up a cow on the front of the Melbourne art gallery is that art? Free expression or simply unnecessary and insensitive?
To me Burning a torah, bible or flag they’re just inanimate objects but the context is the issue.
Mohammed or Jesus as defined …
All these can be provocative, intimidatory, incitement or promote public disharmony, and shouldn’t be permitted in public or where it is a clear intention to do the same. I am thinking of club rooms full of racist, religious intolerance or white supremacy signs.
Incitement, public offence, breach of the peace, public nuisance breaches perhaps but freedom of speech? Hmmm Context

CJ MORGAN
I have no real problem with nudity (although most people would with mine:-) but it's not the intelligent responsible individuals who concern me it's that they're in the minority.

VERONIKA
It all depends on what you mean by irritate? If they harass you or reasonably impeding you,then they should be moved on. If they’re inciting or causing community disharmony then they should be arrested.
You might make a few bucks if sell picture of them being arrested….to fellow olo commenters. They would make a satisfying screen saver
;-)
Posted by examinator, Friday, 5 September 2008 12:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a very interesting thread. I agree with most of the comments here and I would support most/ all of the given examples as being protectable by the principle of free speech.

The example I find the most confronting is the computer-generated depiction of 'kiddie porn' ...I suppose because I find such an interest completely repugnant and inexplicable. However, I was taken with something that CJ Morgan said; that it may be 'therapeutic'. Judging from the numbers of people who are busted in paedophilia sting operations, it must be a very common and deeply intractable perversion. Therefore, shouldn't society be looking at forms of therapy, or at least some avenue for sublimation.
Posted by Kassie, Friday, 5 September 2008 1:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PEACEFUL/VIOLENT RELIGIONS.

The simple test would be.. to follow Steven's bidding and do the following:

1/ Piss Christ painting
2/ Piss Koran sculpture
3/ Piss Buddah Sculture
4/ Piss "Mary" Painting
5/ Piss Sikh Guru painting
6/ Piss "Hindu Pantheon" painting.
7/ Piss GAY couple painting.

All the exibits will be placed on public view at the State Library with a swat team on standby.

then.. we all sit back and watch the news :)

At least we will know who is a danger and who isnt after that.

We'll probably also have an insight into the 'mindset' of each group as they are interviewed by the Media and they give their reasons for whatever they do or don't do.

Hmmm could be a most interesting chunk of PHD research.

In my opinion, it boils down to what laws we make and how far we are prepared to enforce them.
Posted by Polycarp, Friday, 5 September 2008 1:52:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well CJ MORGAN it would appear that, in principle, we're on the same side here. Whether Henson's child models suffer harm is a question of fact and we'll have an answer in a few years.

Examinator, you argue that we should "…preclude acts that would reasonably offend…"

Your post is a typical example of the "I believe in free speech but…." genre.

Who defines "reasonably?" Kevin Rudd? John Howard? Cardinal Pell? Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam, Australia's new mufti? Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry?

In other words, examinator, who are the DE FACTO censors?

"Brokeback Mountain" offended many people. Who are you to say that their feelings are "unreasonable?" Should Brokeback Mountain be banned?

In reality the need to avoid giving offence under threat of criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit would lead to self-censorship and it would become difficult to hold a public debate on controversial issues. Imagine if all discussion about Israel were constrained by the need to avoid offending Jews.

You cite the "artist" who dismembered a cow in front of the Melbourne art gallery and state:

"I see no reason why anyone should be able to publicly impose their lack of sensitivity on others."

Here you have an interesting point. The artist did it in a PUBLIC SPACE.

If homosexual acts offend me I need not see Brokeback Mountain. I need not enter the chamber in which "Piss Christ" is on display.

But public spaces are different. If I have business in the gallery precinct I may not be able to avoid seeing this so-called artist dismember a cow.

From my perspective the short answer is this. All the cases we considered are permissible under a free speech code but not all of them may be uttered or displayed in public spaces. So "Piss Christ" may be displayed in an art gallery but not on a billboard
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Veronika and CJ Morgan said.

If people are not allowed to express their thoughts they'll just be thinking them without expressing them.
There can't be a really good debate if people can't express their thoughts.

Let it out, and piss whatever you think needs pissing.

When thoughts are out, at least they can be discussed.
When we have to bottle up thoughts because others don't find them acceptable we might express them in some other way and it might be worse.

However, when we express thoughts we naturally have to take responsibility and consequences for whatever we utter
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a genre of punditry that I call "I believe in free speech but…." The but then effectively negates the professed belief in free speech.

Similar to people running around professing to oppose racism, except....

Many confuse receipt of compensation for being a victim of racism with an excuse to continue practice with just modified flavor...

.
Posted by polpak, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One slight modification, Boaz.

>>All the exibits will be placed on public view at the State Library<<

The exhibits that stevenlmeyer identifies were on public display, certainly. But within the confines of a gallery.

This provides a context that explicitly states "you are looking at [what some people believe are] works of art".

This is, in my view, fundamentally different from placing them in a public area that does not carry with it the same message.

The word "library" carries connotations of learning, studying, quiet, even solitude - a place that you can reasonably expect to be free of disturbance.

A gallery, by contrast, is a place where artists like to think they are specifically permitted to disturb you - that is one of the functions of art, they will say, to encourage you to see and experience things differently.

Context is, I believe, everything in this.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing the artifacts you describe, and would expect that by choosing to go to the library rather than the gallery, I would not be required to do so.

But I would fully support their display in an environment designed for the purpose.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 5 September 2008 4:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe in true free speech. However, I don't know what a torah scroll is, but if it is an historical artifact (which it sounds like it is), i would view it as destruction of a priceless cultural document and be against it -if it's only a reproduction, I wouldn't have any problem. Religious people have a massive problem with free speech which is why I consider religion to be a scourge of a free society.

Essentially, it's the mentality of, "I am offended, therefore, you must..." This panders to all manner of intolerance and bigotry so that eventually it leads to morality being legislated and people being unable to express themselves properly
Posted by Steel, Friday, 5 September 2008 5:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel wrote:

"I am offended, therefore, you must..."

Exactly!

Usually with the addendum:

"...or I will sue you, drag you before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, riot, kill, burn your country's flag or embassy or both, etc. etc."

Here is an image of a Torah Scroll:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/torah.jpg

The "Torah" is the first five books of the old testament.

Torah scrolls are mostly not priceless artefacts but they are pretty expensive. The cost would run into tens of thousands of dollars.

A genuine Torah scroll is handwritten on parchment by a specially trained scribe. Torah scrolls are revered objects. If one is dropped during the course of a service all those present must fast for a day. A pious Jew would probably feel about the burning of a Torah scroll the same way a Muslim would feel about flushing a koran down the toilet.

In practice I'm not sure how you would acquire a Torah scroll for the purposes of burning or immersing in urine. A scribe is unlikely to sell you one unless you are a genuine synagogue.

You could steal one but that would lay you open to a charge of theft. You may also face a civil suit for the recovery of the cost of the scroll.

You could dummy up a scroll but I doubt anyone would care.

Torah scrolls can be quite big so if you want to immerse one in urine you would need to collect the stuff over several weeks. Or, I suppose, you could assemble a large number of "donors."
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 6:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ. I'll bite. Your suggestion that computer generated kiddie porn should be available to those that want it-and it might be therapeutic. BS.

Here's an idea- why don't we get serial killers together with those seeking euthanasia?

Twit.
Posted by palimpsest, Friday, 5 September 2008 6:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I'm with you on this one.

It's simply respecting what others hold
dear. If you want your rights and values respected,
you have to respect those of others.

In our society we are free to say or write what
we think about any subject, issue, or person, as
long as we don't defame anyone. The four items that
you've listed should be protected, because not to
do so would be defamation.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 5 September 2008 6:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
palimpsest you missed the point. you can draw or create cg pictures of murdering children, assaulting people, shooting, etc. anything. Maybe this will help you undertand and not explode with ...computer generated images are not real. how can you even pretend otherwise?

@stevenimeyer...if these are handwritten scrolls, and your goal is to pay millions of dollars and burn them all, unless they were reproductions, that is cultural vandalism. It would be like smelting an old Australian coin or burning a priceless painting..
Posted by Steel, Saturday, 6 September 2008 3:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
palimpsest, I like how your brain works. If ever we have responsible euthanasia laws enacted and which remain on the books, that would be an interesting conundrum, could one argue for the calmative effect of sanctioned killing, I wonder...

Steel, palimpsest appears to have been suggesting that if 'computer-generated kiddie porn' is ok because nobody has been harmed, then surely organising a meeting between serial killers and those seeking to euthanasia should also be permissable (for the obvious reason that it is entirely arguable that if the serial killers euthanised those seeking that service, they have done a service not harm). A symbiotic relationship of sorts (albeit a short lived one).

steven, so what would you regard as being 'beyond the pale'? Hate speech perhaps? So what of a neo-nazi in full regalia pissing on the torah (for the sake of argument, let's say they have dispensation to urinate in a public place)?

What else?
Posted by Haganah Bet, Saturday, 6 September 2008 5:00:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,
Yes- to all four referendum questions (&, the later additions).

Though I am inclined to think that such -art- is more about wanting to be noticed than having anything noteworthy to say.

But, I wouldn’t advocate censorship , nor would I vote for govt funding

And I find it unbelievable that in some parts of the -liberal- world people can go to jail for questioning the holocaust. Mind you, it is edging a little that way in Aust too where if you challenge the official black-arm-band-viewed of Western history you’re liable to be greeted with shouts of OMG! stone the heretic!
[or in the more refined atmosphere of OLO “troll” “islamophobe”]
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 6 September 2008 6:53:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TO MY LIST....

I should have added:

-Piss 'Insider trading' showing greedy people sharing knowledge and make sure the whole exhibit is displayed in a GALLERY in Caulfield ..

Then there would be
-Piss "Economic Racism"

where a powerful retailing identity tries to manipulate a large company such that his own family controls not just the sales..but also SUPPLY... Not a bad possy .. "yes.. you (nephew/niece -name the relation) should move into 'Trendy Female Apparel'..after all..I can then make sure that YOUR (our) brand is given priority in the selling space.

His despicable actions were made public knowledge. Not that he would care.. after all he made some hundreds of millions in one day selling a company he bought for a song a couple of years earlier.

But then..some people are never satisfied.. so they use a lot of that money to portray themselves as some kind of righteous battling victim who has 'strong support from the little bloke' in the media.

In fact..his investment vehicle profit went down from 640 MILLION ish down to 40 million when he was booted off the board of the retailer.
Sheesh.. now.. thats 600 million LESS .. so one is not surprised that he rather wanted to remain in a position to control much of the 'supply' and 'demand' ends of the company. That kinda control buys a lot of 7 series Beamers and Porches...for..the family perhaps even an Island?

Hmmm what a tragedy that a company started by a man who cared so much about the COMMUNITY that half of Melbourne turned out for his funeral..is infected by an identity who seems to care more for his own ethno religious family than the everyone else.

AAah yes.. free speech.. a good thing.
Posted by Polycarp, Saturday, 6 September 2008 9:26:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am encouraged that most people here do not fall for the "I believe in free speech but…" con.

PERICLES,

For ONCE we are in total agreement.

HAGANAH BET

If a Jew hater legally acquires, a Torah scroll and chooses to piss on it while dressed in Nazi regalia then yes. But not in a public space. He can hire a hall, sell tickets to the event and perform before consenting adults.

This would be perfectly legal in the US.

You ask if I consider "HATE SPEECH" beyond the pale.

What is hate speech? I don’t want a legalistic definition. I want to know what you consider to be hate speech.

About the only thing I would consider "beyond the pale" is actual incitement to violence NARROWLY DEFINED. I usually put it like this:

PERMITTED: Jews are filthy, slimy and untrustworthy.

FORBIDDEN: Kill the Jews.

Sometimes you have borderline cases. The following hadith was quoted on the front page of the website of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at the University of Southern California (USC).

“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him….”

IS THIS INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE?

USC compelled the MSA to remove this hadith from the front page. However it and similar ones can still be found in compendia of sacred Muslim texts – eg Sahih Bukhari 4.52.176 and 177.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html

My own view is that USC should NOT have compelled the MSA to remove this hadith.

IF IT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY IT.

If these ahadith are not part of Muslim belief let Islamic "scholars" tell the USC MSA to remove it.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 6 September 2008 9:38:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd be interested in seeing a PissBoazy, but I don't think I'd bother paying much to see it. It would have to be a very cheap pisstake.
Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 6 September 2008 10:57:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, CGI of kiddie porn may be therapeutic or they may be a stepping stone to the real thing. I can go out to my car and do 100 in a 60 zone, having fun fulfilling my need for speed and harming no-one. But on the chance that I harm self or others that law exists. Censoring CGI of child pornography is a no brainer, even if next to impossible to achieve. The taboo should not be breached.

Boaz, your Piss InsiderTrading gave me a chuckle which became a laugh when Bugsy created the masterwork PissBoazy. Very funny.
Posted by palimpsest, Saturday, 6 September 2008 5:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How come no-one else has brought up the fact that we are all getting our knickers in a knot? The article is entitled "I believe in free speech but..." and then goes on to give examples of freedom of expression. A totally different question.

However, as Kofi Annan said in Istanbul "We must safeguard our freedom of expression while working to prevent it being used to spread hatred or inflict humiliation........Rights carry with them responsibilities and should be excercised with sensitivity....". (13/11/06) I reckon that if you don't get that, then you don't deserve the Right.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 6 September 2008 6:59:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I've been reading the posts on this thread
with interest. It seems that freedom of
speech to many is an important ideal however,
the reality is often very different.

David Irving was not allowed into Australia.
He's a Holocaust denialist.

The Zionist Lobby attempted to stop
Hanan Ashrawi from receiving the Sydney
Peace Prize.

The black American personality, "Snoop Dog"
was also considered
"undesirable."

It seems that we are reluctant to allow those
we disagree with to speak in the community.

So the question of free speech must go back to
its intention. The intention must be constructive,
not to do harm.

Which brings me back to your four questions Steven.
After a re-think, the answer is no.
And, I guess that places me in the "I believe in
free speech but..." genre.

But that's allright by me.

Freedom of speech should not be an excuse to harm
others.
Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 6 September 2008 7:06:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must thanks palimpsest for the gratuitous insult. In case he didn't notice, I was responding to Steven's question. Several subsequent posters, including Steven, agreed with the general point that computer-generated images depicting 'kiddie-porn' should not be illegal if there are no minors involved in their production.

My speculation that "they might even be therapeutic" was an attempt to think outside the square, and at least one other poster indicated that the possibility might have some merit. Frankly, I don't know - but I do know that prohibiting anything immediately creates a black market for it, and something as easily produced and reproduced as computer graphics would likely be more easily monitored and controlled if it's legal.

palimpsest simply asserts that "Censoring CGI of child pornography is a no brainer, even if next to impossible to achieve". Why is it a no-brainer? How do analogies with speeding cars and serial killers elucidate a debate about freedom of expression? What evidence does palimpsest have that viewing fictional graphics hurts anybody?

Hysterical prat.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 6 September 2008 7:12:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

A few comments.

David Irving aside, so far as I am aware it is not a crime in Australia to deny the Holocaust. I hope it never will be.

Hanan Ashrawi,* defender of Holocaust deniers, deserves a "peace prize" about as much as the good Dr. Goebbels. However if the Sydney Peace [sic] Foundation choose to give her one that is their business.

The "Zionist Lobby" – like any other lobby – is free to, well, lobby. That is part of their right to free speech. On the whole governments should ignore lobby groups.

I know nothing about snoop dog.

I cannot understand why you give the activities of the "Zionist lobby" or the Howard Government as a reason for changing your mind about free speech.

Why should that influence you one way or another?

You write:

"The intention must be constructive, not to do harm."

Who decides what is "constructive?" Who decides what causes harm?

Above all, the harm caused by censorship exceeds, by far, any temporary harm that may be caused by the robust exercise of free speech.

But here is the most important reason of all for allowing DESTRUCTIVE free speech.

If we did not allow destructive criticism we'd have to take this show off the air and it's the best thing on TV right now.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/hollowmen/#/home



*Spare me the sanitised version of the Ashrawi biography.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 6 September 2008 11:23:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,
“What evidence does palimpsest have that viewing fictional graphics hurts anybody”
I’m curious about that, too.

Palimpsest,
If one wants to drive 100 one just has to choose a 100 road. Or one has to speed in one's mind- in one's mind one can go 10,000 on a 40 road.

Or one can use one's fantasy and create a computer game where one can drag race on any road one likes, at any speed one likes, running over twits and hysterical prats, just for fun.
Nobody will lock you up for it.

So really, think about it: who is going to get harmed when a paedophile, in the privacy of his own room, uses his imagination to draw/create an image of a nude non-existing child in a way that sexually pleases him?
If creating images of nude, non-existing children will reduce the paedophile’s need for real child pornography, which does harm children, then won’t allowing the paedophile his dirty little hobby help reduce the harm done to children?

I’m not saying that I have an established opinion on this particular idea, because this is the first time I’m giving it some thought.
Atm, I can think of a few pro and against arguments, including attacking CJ’s and my own argument above.

What I would like to do if we were going to discuss this normally is to just have a look at all the pro and against arguments that we can think of together.

Steven,
“Who decides what causes harm?”
I think that this should be a democratic decision. For example, discrimination against a particular group causes harm to that group.
Do we want to live in a country where some groups can be targeted, bullied or harmed? If not, we'd have to create e.g. anti-discrimination laws.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 7 September 2008 12:21:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,
When some of us say that any form of expressing is Ok just so long as it does not incite hate/harm we are saying that the prime value/shibboleth is human life.

But suppose someone belongs to a creed that sees the prime value as not being human life, but “serving God”.To such a mindset (if they are honest with themselves –& others) it would be better harm fellow humans than harm God. Do we draw the line to accommodate their values or our own.

Is it determined simply by whoever has the most children: the majority rules.?

And what happens when such people form the majority –does some international body such as the UN have the right to intervene and say ‘sorry! human rights are paramount we’re introducing regime/culture change’ ?
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 7 September 2008 6:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven,

So you would suggest only specifically worded incitement(s) to actual violence should be verboten? What about indirect instructions and/or procedural advice which would arguably provide meaningful assistance to those seeking to inflict the same?

Say for example (a) I write on a website 'THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE SARIN...'

Then proceed to provide an effective, step-by-step synthesis of the same, starting from easily sourced ingredients/precursors... But in this scenario (1) I do NOT provide details of how to deliver the same effectively and (2) do NOT suggest that this be used in certain areas in order to inflict the most harm/suffering.

In scenarios (b) & (c) I do provide either (1) or (2) respectively whilst in scenario (d) I provide both (1) & (2) along with the synthesis information.

In none of these scenarios do I suggest that the compound be used to target any one or any specific ethnic, language and/or religious group, all that would be involved is:

(a) providing dangerous information, but information which is already in the public arena;* and

(b) advice on how to commit a terror attack with WMD's; or

(c) advice on how to maximise the results of a terror attack with WMD's; or

(d) advice on how to not only commit a terror attack with WMD's but also how to maximise the effects of the same.

If these are within the pale, consider the result of swapping Sarin & WMD for (a) methamphetamine and dangerous drug, the advice being (b) how to distribute it effectively; or (c) how to maximise profitability; or (d) both.

There are specific laws dealing with the latter category(s) on the books in some Australian jurisdictions and they are used.

* The discussion should accept for the purpose of argument that it is established that no conspiracy laws could be brought to bear.
Posted by Haganah Bet, Sunday, 7 September 2008 7:32:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
i'm for free speech too. in fact, i include pornographic pictures of children. we are free to prosecute the people that make them, that seems enough to me. and indeed, having the pictures available makes detection and prosecution easier.

unless, that is, oz comes to democracy. right now we are ruled by an elite and one of our (feeble) defenses against oppression is what passes for free speech here. if it's necessary to make a picture of a child in a pornographic act in order to publicize the presence of a government officer in that act, then it's in the public interest to make the picture and publicize it.

if the democratic republic of australia, through the mechanism of citizen initiative, outlawed child pornography, that's a different story. with no political elite, ordinary police and prosecution methods will work.
Posted by DEMOS, Sunday, 7 September 2008 7:51:48 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I'm not going to get into an argument
with you about Hanan Ashrawi and the
way the Australian Jewish News handled
the matter. If you want to hear another
version of the one you've bought,
try Antony Loewenstein's, book
"My Israel Question," to get a different
perspective on the subject.

The only reason I brought up the matter, is
because we were discussing free speech. And
the media plays a big part in what is presented
to its public (and how it is presented).

As I stated in my post, we can claim to believe
in the "Ideal" of free speech, but often the
reality is very different, even from a "thinking"
gentleman such as you present yourself to be.

We all have our character flaws, as you once pointed
out in another thread.

And that's a human trait. We can all claim to be
for the ideal of "Free speech" but if we're honest,
we would all admit there are lines in the sand that
we would not cross. Simply because "It's not right!"
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 7 September 2008 11:23:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven, Polpak, &others
I must admit that on the surface it would seem as though I am dealing in punditry or simply having a bob each way. Perhaps I assumed too much in my piece.
• There is a legally established test under law called ‘the reasonable man test’. In the final analysis it is a Jury that decides that certainly not me as an individual.
• However, under law there are “precedents” (decided cases) which act as guide lines for whether a case goes to court by the prosecution or not.
• From these guidelines the police have their rules as to what is or is not potentially a breach.
• There is of course interpretational lee way for police on the ground to decide on if a protest of say 50 grannies protesting about pensions taking their outer clothes off is a risk to public order or not(actual event)….all that meat and no potatoes&#61514; Compare this with 50 Nazis, 50 rabid racists you decide?
• For THESE reasons I was somewhat concerned about lumping the examples under FREEDOM OF SPEECH issues.
I was in fact differentiating between freedom of speech and some of the charges that could apply and simply supporting established Australia’s legal system.

Using this perspective many of the seeming conflicts with freedom of speech can be avoided and the ‘offences’ picked up under other charges e.g. 50 grannies in ‘witch’s britches” is hardly in the same threat category as 50 Skin heads screaming death threats and racist comments is it? As I said CONTEXT determines the level of action and hopefully the charge.

If YOUR concerns are that you’re unhappy with the way the system works then that is a different issue altogether… perhaps another post?
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 7 September 2008 11:32:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I get the impression that some people here have no idea what free speech is.

Free speech is NOT the freedom to do or write or say whatever one wishes. That's ANARCHY.

Anyone here under 60 or so is part of the prosperous, self indulgent "me" generations. It's all about "my" rights, what "I" want, it's about "me" "me" "me" and "my" needs. Many posts on this topic show that.

Freedom of speech, taking into account libel, slander and child pornography is also problematic. One person's slander is another person's truth, one person's porn is another person's art. That's why we have laws to restrict certain forms of expression. If you don't like the law, then you can exercise your freedom of speech to change the law. Now THAT'S freedom of speech.

Another point, if someone has the right to do or say anything with the depiction Christ, child porn, Allah or the Holocaust etc etc in ANY way they choose (and this is some peoples' broad definition of freedom of speech), then do people who find that offensive have the right to do or say anything in opposition? If this version of freedom is "truth", then surely it must apply to ALL beliefs and ALL opinions; what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Of course this is a skewered "version" of freedom that's designed solely to satisfy individuals' needs and opinions. It's not freedom at all.

I find that some people are all for total freedom....UNTIL.... they're personally and directly confronted with something they find deeply and irreconcilably offensive. Then it's, "I'm still for freedom, but.........".

Freedom to do or say or write as one desires is NOT freedom. That's ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom.

It's a shame, that in a free country like Australia, more people don't understand the meaning of freedom of speech. I support freedom of speech 100%. I oppose anarchy 100%. Some people need to understand the difference between the two.
Posted by samsung, Sunday, 7 September 2008 12:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PERICLES.. (and Steven) YES.. actually... I also can agree with the 'in gallery/sell tickets' proprosal because for the purpose of the exercise, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference to the outcome.

When a play suggesting Jesus was homosexual was performed in Melbourne.. Muslims were up in arms... along with Christians being rather outraged.

My view is.. "What a great opportunity to capitalize on the publicity to give the biblical call to repentance and faith" (including repentance from homosexual behavior)

My goodness, you can't put enough of a dollar value on publicity like that!

So... the mind of Morgan is into kiddie porn ? hmmm as long as no minors are involved in it's production? CJ.. that's something in BIG need of repentance I'm afraid.. turn now before it's too late for you.

Now Steven touches on one of my favorites of Hate speech...

PERMITTED: Jews are filthy, slimy and untrustworthy.

FORBIDDEN: Kill the Jews.

Indeed.. and in the hadith quoted (nice for someone other than me doing this..specially a JEW who would bear the brunt of the hadith concerned)

The HADITH says "UNLESS.. the Muslims KILL... the Jews"

Now.. some analysis is worthwhile.

this hadith connects the HERE and NOW.. to a FUTURE event.. where that future event is dependant on SPECIFIC action.. namely
KILL JEWS.

Now..I can think of a number of possible 'rationalizations' which Muslims might try to use to defend this:
such as:

"Oh..this means Jews who will be attacking Muslims in the last days"

Or.. "This is a weak hadith"

Well.. back to 'interpretation 101'..and we must ask.."On what basis/evidence" can they say this? Of course it would need to be clear and documented.

So...I invite any Muslim reader to do just that!

The fact that it is in total harmony with the mass slaughter and exile of all Jewish Tribes from Arabia should give us a hint as to what interpretation is required. In each case the Jews are blamed and the Muslims are claimed to be innocent.
Posted by Polycarp, Sunday, 7 September 2008 3:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Polycarp,

I am starting to suspect that you Sir,
are a salesman.

Nothing more.

And the sad part for you is, nobody's buying!
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 7 September 2008 6:31:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Polycarp,
I contacted a long-term friend of mine and WELL qualified (he has doctorates from Oxford and Harvard) who could provide the information you say you want to set up a meeting (oh yes he’s a Muslim).

But after reading a number of your comments to get a feel for what you might ask and what he might need to provide. He made comment noting the way you assert your ‘limited knowledge’ of his faith then politely declined the offer. Telling me that “it would be a waste of your time." when pushed further he said "It would like teaching blind man to fly a plane…it would end badly"
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 7 September 2008 7:00:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Porkycarp: << So... the mind of Morgan is into kiddie porn ? hmmm as long as no minors are involved in it's production? CJ.. that's something in BIG need of repentance I'm afraid.. turn now before it's too late for you. >>

Boazy's obviously getting desperate. This is because he's made an arse of himself on other OLO threads, where he's been shown to be as dishonest in his current incarnation as "Polycarp" as he was in his former OLO identity of "BOAZ_David".

Typical boazycrap, let's move on..

Haganah Bet makes an interesting point. I would think that the sort of scenario s/he describes is another exceptional case where freedom of expression might legitimately be restricted.

Foxy: << We can all claim to be
for the ideal of "Free speech" but if we're honest,
we would all admit there are lines in the sand that
we would not cross. Simply because "It's not right!" >>

Sorry Foxy, it's not that simple. You have to say why something is "not right" in order to win an argument, rather than "simply" asserting that it's so.

With respect, examinator and samsung should read more widely. Nice ideas, but they only connect tenuously with reality.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 7 September 2008 7:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies - I shouldn't have included examinator in my last post.

Erk.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 7 September 2008 8:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, please tell why I should read more and why my comments connect only tenuously with reality.

It's easy to disagree with others of differing opinion by using such statements, but harder to back up the personal comments and put downs with facts; how about having a go at the latter. I know it takes an actual effort, but please give it a try. I'm waiting.
Posted by samsung, Sunday, 7 September 2008 10:24:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ,

We know when something "Isn't right."
We have a conscience for a reason.

I can't give you a list here. It depends
on the situation and the circumstances
involved.

As far as free speech is concerned, it's
the intention behind it that matters.
As I said in my previous post, free speech
should not be an excuse of doing harm to others.

But that's only my opinion.
I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me.
Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 7 September 2008 11:12:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJMorgan,
does this mean you don't love me anymore? Aww I gonna sulk....
Ok I'm over it now.
Can I be forgiven now pleeease?
Posted by examinator, Monday, 8 September 2008 5:59:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry samsung - I've just reread your post, which I obviously misinterpreted. I take your point that freedom of speech doesn't mean open slather, which is what I've been arguing as well.

Examinator - of course I love you. Such purity of emotion simply cannot die.

Foxy - fair enough, so long as you're not attempting to impose your personal 'line in the sand' on others.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 8 September 2008 8:20:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear CJ,

I am only entitled to my opinion.
And I'm sorry if I gave you the impression
that I'm trying to force my opinion on
anyone else. That's not who I am.
Posted by Foxy, Monday, 8 September 2008 9:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
samsung>"I find that some people are all for total freedom....UNTIL.... they're personally and directly confronted with something they find deeply and irreconcilably offensive. Then it's, "I'm still for freedom, but........."."

The problem is, this is so subjective that eventually the whole country is speechless, or voiceless. "An eye for and eye makes the whole world blind" Similarly a "voice for a voice" makes the whole world voiceless. That is a great loss to humanity and culture in my opinion.
Posted by Steel, Monday, 8 September 2008 1:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel I've read your post a few times, but unfortunately I can't quite make sense of it. Could you please expand on your comments so that I can understand exactly what you're saying. Thank you.

Regarding your first sentence: I wrote that it only applies to "some" people. I find it impossible to see how this makes "the whole country speechless, or voiceless" as you wrote (unless everybody in the country found everything in existence offensive). Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning.
Posted by samsung, Monday, 8 September 2008 3:19:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You also said 'true' free speech is "ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom"

I let it pass, but it sounds a whole lot like "FREEDOM is SLAVERY" doesn't it? Are you familiar with that phrase?
Posted by Steel, Monday, 8 September 2008 4:10:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I haven't heard that saying.

Total free speech, and total freedom, IS anarchy. To act *ONLY* as you choose, regardless of the impact, is NOT freedom for everyone, it is only freedom for *YOU*. You therefore become an ANARCHIST, acting only on *YOUR* interpretations of right and wrong or whatever.

Do I have the "free right" to rob you and assault you? No, I DON'T have that freedom. Do I have the "free right" to say you bash your wife when you have never done that? No. In other words I am NOT free to act as I may choose...and that's the way it should be. Total freedom IS anarchy!

The fact is that freedom is NOT the right to say, write and do as one chooses. *FREEDOM* is a much, much deeper, broader and far reaching right than that rather selfish and shallow definition.

I'm still waiting for an "interpretation" of your other post. I've just read it again, and it's meaning still totally escapes me. Please enlighten me. I'm waiting.
Posted by samsung, Monday, 8 September 2008 4:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't know how you managed to reach a description of anarchy in this discussion. It has little to do with it, if anything. Calling free speech anarchy is like saying "freedom is slavery". Look up the phrase. I'm not providing an explanation of anything until you can demonstrate your ability to stay calm and within the frameworks of this discussion, rather than describing free speech as 'calamitous'.
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 12:41:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
like the chinese
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 12:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Samsung,

It is meaningless to label free speech, or anything else, anarchy. I don’t think free speech is anarchic but what if it is? What do you mean by anarchy IN THIS CONTEXT anyway?

Your example of accusing someone of wife-beating is besides the point. There are laws against slander and libel.

Here is a real question:

Can I say that I think your religious beliefs asinine?

Not that you are asinine; but that you have certain beliefs that are asinine.

Until recently the answer has always been yes. In fact the right to express yourself freely, without fear of reprisals, about other people's beliefs, opinions, faiths and utterances has always been considered the whole POINT of allowing free speech.

Foxy,

I think you are confusing a personal code of conduct for what should, or should not, be illegal. If I were a newspaper editor I would not have commissioned the Muhammad cartoons. But I would resist any efforts to make publishing Muhammad cartoons illegal.

Hagannah Bet,

The only reason someone would want to access a website about making nerve gas is in order to kill. Anyone putting such information on the web could be considered part of a conspiracy to murder.

That being said, I doubt anyone who wanted to make nerve gas would have much difficulty getting the relevant information
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 9:54:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel, I did NOT say free speech is anarchy. Free speech is NOT anarchy and **THAT'S** my point. I'm afraid you're not reading my posts properly, if at all.

It goes to "definition", and that's why I prefixed the term free speech with "total" when describing anarchy...... that is, the freedom to say or do or write ANYTHING. We do NOT have the freedom to say, do or write ANYTHING. The freedom to say, do or write ANYTHING is NOT freedom (except for the person doing the saying, the act or the writing). This is NOT freedom because it can so easily impinge on the freedom of others who hold different opinions, politics, religions, lifestyles etc etc. You don't seem to grasp this. We have to work within a framework of laws in order to have an orderly society. Those laws apply to just about everything, INCLUDING WHAT YOU SAY OR WRITE.

As I have written previously in this topic: I support free speech 100%; I am anti anarchy 100% (read the last sentence of my post on page 7).

Understanding the difference between anarchy and freedom is vital to this type of discussion.

You wrote that I described free speech as "calamitous" (you used inverted commas). Could you please quote me where I specifically said free speech was "calamitous". You know you can't. Why? Because I didn't say that free speech was "calamitous".

I have repeatedly supported free speech. Unfortunately, some people don't understand what "free speech" is. They erroneously believe free speech is the right to say anything about anyone without any responsibility and without any recourse being taken against them. That's ANARCHY. We CAN'T just say, do or write whatever we wish regardless of the consequences: I repeat, that's anarchy, NOT freedom.

Understand the difference!
Posted by samsung, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 4:46:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven, free speech is **NOT** anarchy: That's the basis of my posts.

Freedom is the opposite of anarchy.

Saying, acting or writing merely as one wishes is NOT exercising freedom.

Freedom carries responsibilities beyond the self gratification of one's will.

Freedom can often encompass NOT doing as one wishes: For example, I do NOT have the freedom to assault you. Why? Because that impinges on YOUR freedom to live in safety.

I hope you now better understand my points regarding freedom and anarchy.
Posted by samsung, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 5:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You lost me. I can't follow your reasoning because it sounds completely backwards to me and immediately begins to sound like a regime. None of the examples submitted by the op match your descriptions here, so one can only guess at what the you think you are talking about.

I think this is a great example of how our society 'educates' it's populace to believe in authoritarian principles (such as convincing people to believe free speech is actually harmful and must be significantly controlled).
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 6:05:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Samsung offered a variation on the old and valid "Yelling fire in a crowded theatre” scenario. It has been determined by legal practicality is support of the “common good’ under these circumstances free speech has should have limitations (Steven and Steel.) Hence in reality the debate is over which is the outcome of Absolute freedom of speech.

Do we assume that people will honour the implicit respect for other's rights as championed by SAMSUNG? Or argument of Steel and Steven assume that people will follow their selfish urges and ignore the rights of others (anarchy).

In essence Samsung is right in terms of purity of logic but I fear Steel and Steven is offering the more pragmatic probability.
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 9 September 2008 7:59:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Samsung,
Just for my edification. I would like to hear you apply your principles to some specific cases.

For example, why we should/shouldn’t be able to view the Muhammad cartoons or some of the other -art- forms originally nominated by Steven (?)
Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 5:35:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Foxy :) I'm not selling....I'm giving away freely.

EXAMINATOR ... wow.. I am touched that you would take the trouble to communicate with someone about my offer. I'm not surprised that his eminence took the view he did.. Muslims tend to run scared when confronted with someone who actually knows their material as well as or better than they :) (now that should stirrrrrr the pot a bit)

Let's choose the subject..

THE MORAL CHARACTER OF MOHAMMAD.. as SHOWN BY THE 33rd SURAH.

NOw.. I invite you to look at and evaluat the following information.

1/ Verse 50 "Mohammad declares that the following women are 'lawful' to him.
2/ He then declares "But this is only for ME...not for the believers"

3/ He includes in his 'list' of lawful women 'a believing woman who offers herself' ie.. ANY believing woman.

4/ Temporary marriage Nikah Muta' was approved of by Mohammad UNTIL the Battle of Khayber, much later than the time of surah 33

4/ Revelation STOPS at verse 50.. I mean..seriously.. really.. that's the 'end' UNTIL.. a certain event takes place.

It's found in the Hadith.

There is obviously a procession of women.. which could include children as young as 'just' pubescent coming to Mohammad and offering themselves for...?

OUTCOME.

His youngest wife Ayesha says..in her own words as follows:

Muslim Book 008, Number 3453:

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this:" You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)" (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire.

SEE IT? only THEN.... after she complains..is verse 51 "revealed"

v51= "I can do what I like"

I challenge him to debate me on THIS! and we'll see who the blind man is.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 8:06:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
EXAMINATOR...

MORAL CHARACTER OF MOHAMMAD ...(continued)

It might be argued that "Oh...that was the practice at that time"

Well..fortunately for me, I've done my background reading.

We often hear, from Muslims, that "Mohammad lifted the Arabs out of their moral squalor with the light of the Quran" etc etc.

But look at what one of their major scholars says.. a man considered of sufficient scholarly repute that the University of Southern California Muslim Students Association uses him as their reference scholar on the Quran.

"Today, over 150 MSA chapters exist on American college campuses (divided into five regional chapters), easily establishing this organization as the most extensive Muslim student organization in North America."

HE...says as follows in his introduction to Surah 33

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/maududi/mau33.html

The other problem was that before marrying Hadrat Zainab, he had four wives already in the houses: Hadrat Saudah, Hadrat Aishah, Hadrat Hafsah, and Hadrat Umm Salamah. Hadrat Zainab was his fifth wife. At this the opponents raised the objection, and the Muslims also started entertaining doubts, that as for others it had been forbidden to keep more than four wives at a time, but how the Holy Prophet himself had taken a fifth wife also.

In OTHER words.. the Televangelist or the Priest is saying "GOD TOLD ME" I can molest that child.. YOU ordinary believers cannot, but I CAN!

Anyone who cannot see this.. is utterly blind :) including your professor friend.

USUAL RESPONSE from Muslims is..
-"Oh.. you got that from hate sites" (no..I got it from the Quran and hadith)
-"But that is a WEAK hadith" (which it is not!)

If all else fails....

-"Your just an idiot" (or blind:)

What he(your friend) really means is.. "This bloke will not eat the spin and propoganda I would like to feed him" So..the ending is indeed 'bad'..but for your friend..not me.
Posted by Polycarp, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 8:22:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can always count on Porkycrap to revert to whack-a-Mozzie mode when he can't get traction elsewhere - like his homophobia thread, for example, or when he's caught out telling lies, or when his other rabble-rousing efforts don't go in the direction he wants.

However, I'd defend his right to do so. Unlike him, I believe in free speech.

And in Porky's case, nobody could do a better job of destroying any shred of credibility he may retain than he does.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 11:38:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus, through necessity there's always "degrees" of freedom. Regarding the cartoons, whether they should, or shouldn't, be banned/allowed/supported/criticised depends on the general social/political/religious/non-religious/philosophical outlook of the people who wish to either ban or allow such expression. No **ONE** action suits all people everywhere in the world. That's just human nature. There is no **ONE** answer to your question of, "why should or shouldn't we be allowed to view the cartoons?". There may be of course "one" answer for "one" grouping of people, but that doesn't mean there's one answer for all people in the world. This concept doesn't just apply to the cartoons, but to every word written by every writer everywhere in the world, past and present.

No matter what........ whether we are slaves, partially free, free or are totally free to do or say as we choose, our actions can sometimes negatively impact and impinge on other peoples' freedom to do or say as "they" choose: the degree of that impact depends on one's actions. When one person's version of freedom clashes with another person's version of freedom, we don't end up with freedom, we end up with a real problem. This is a problem that will NEVER be solved on a universal basis for all. Why? Because of the diversity of human nature. The MOST we can hope for is compromise. That's why "true" freedom works (mostly) in relatively free societies such as our's, where limits are placed on our freedoms. We are free to do and say certain things "only". We are not free, for example, to drive on the wrong side of the road or assault people or defame people etc etc etc.

In a pragmatic, workable way, what we have in this country (and similar countries) is as close to true freedom as it gets so far, taking into account human nature. If someone wants to merely say or write or do ANYTHING then that person is not encompassing freedom, he/she is encompassing anarchy. Some people are incapable of understanding this very basic concept.
Posted by samsung, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 12:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
samsung>"In a pragmatic, workable way, what we have in this country (and similar countries) is as close to true freedom as it gets so far, taking into account human nature."

Not even close. Why do people assume that our society is the end game? There is no way at all it is. There are all sorts of examples provided by stevenimeyer that PROVE right here that such an opinion is absurd. Other countries already have wider range of freedoms than our own. The current system is puppeting you samsung.
Posted by Steel, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 1:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh for goodness sake, get a grip steel, you're trying to argue for the sake of arguing now.

OF COURSE, I repeat, OF COURSE our country is not the "end game": In fact I said that by including the term "so far". We AGREE! Duh. Our society here has more freedoms than some free societies, and less freedoms than some free societies.......again DUH! EVERY free society is like that; I don't know of ONE "perfect" free society. If you read my posts "properly" you'd see I've been saying exactly that all along. Maybe you failed comprehension at school, maybe not, but I think you could possibly up your skills in that regard; it certainly wouldn't do you any harm.
Posted by samsung, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 4:06:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Polycarp,

What do you mean you're not a salesman?
You solicit, you promote, you peddle
your product.

And you're under the delusion that
you're giving it freely?

You don't seem to take into account
the personal cost to the groups of
people that you target.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 7:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

I'm not confusing a personal code of
conduct with what should be legal or
illegal at all.

I've never been more certain of anything
more in my life.

We have values and mores in our society to
prevent "anarchy" as Samsung tried to point out to
you. And as examinator said, you can't yell
"fire" in a crowded theatre, simply because you
may feel like it, or want to exercise your
"freedom of speech."

Personal code of conduct? We have to decide
what is to be acceptable in our society. And the
kind of society we want to live in.
We also have to take resposibility for our
actions. Feral behaviour shouldn't be
acceptable.
Posted by Foxy, Wednesday, 10 September 2008 8:16:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy wrote:

"…We have to decide
what is to be acceptable in our society. And the
kind of society we want to live in.
We also have to take resposibility for our
actions. Feral behaviour shouldn't be
acceptable."

Foxy, Samsung:

PIOUS GENERALITIES are all very well.

But now I am asking you to be SPECIFIC.

Which of these should be ILLEGAL?

1)Denying the Holocaust

(2) “Piss Torah?” Torah scrolls are expensive but with photoshop all things are possible.

(3) How about burning a Torah scroll?

(4)A statue of Jesus with an impressive erection.

And I'll two more.

(5)Should the Muslim Students Association be allowed to display the following ahadith on their website?

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight will the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' "

(Bukhari 4.52.176)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

(Bukhari 4.52.177)

Note that these ahadith are from Bukhari. Muslims believe all the Bukhari ahadith are authentic. So these statements are part of their "scripture."

(6)How about this one? Should Christians be allowed to display 1 Corinthians 6:9

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders

Let's get specific answers.

Which of these should be illegal?

What would be appropriate sentences?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 11 September 2008 12:18:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
STEVEN...

DIFFERENCE IS IMPORTANT......

One the one hand.. the hadith is connecting the "here and now" with the 'there and then' (the last hour) and the condition of reaching the 'there and then' is.. KILLING JEWS....

Now- one set of human beings (Muslims) KILLING another (Jews) because of their race.... so that the last hour is brought in...

It stands to reason then..that the obvious consequence is..

"The quicker we (muslims) KILL the Jews.. the faster we all get to paradise and start playing with our houris"

CONTRAST.. Your selection of 1 Cor 6:9 is quite ok.. but let's look closely at the difference between that and the hadith..

1/ THE KINGDOM OF GOD.. Whenever Jesus was asked

Acts 1:6

"Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

See it? we Christians are called to CALL... not to KILL... we call mankind to discipleship.. to follow Christ.. to open their hearts to Him...

Any observer can see that whenever the 'Kingdom' was proclaimed in Acts..it was a CALL and INVITATION to come by free will and choice..

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.. about whether the verse you cited can be displayed? I don't see any reason for it to be displayed publicly, it will always exist in Scripture (just like the Hadith) and people are free to read it anytime they like.

It might be offensive.. annoying.. hurtful to some... but it does not call in the slightest for any physical HARM to be done by Christians to non Christians.

"For God so LOVED the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him, will not perish but have everlasting life" John 3:16

"belief" cannot be enforced from outside...

THAT.... is the important difference.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 11 September 2008 9:04:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Which should be illegal and what punishments"

The whole Quran and hadith should be banned and made illegal. Selecting verses here and there doesn't change it's presense.

-It is seditious "Fight those who do not believe in Allah"
-It promotes sexual abuse "those your right hands posseses" (numerous references.
-It permits sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children under the guise of marriage (65:4 as interpreted by Tafheem Al Quran/Maududi)
-It destroys the dignity of women making them a commodity and something to marry for political reasons. (Mohammads example)
-It destroys the idea of true love between one man and one woman.
-It glorifies violence.
-It demands it's followers not to be friends with Christians and Jews.
-It specifically CURSES Christians and Jews calling for their destruction. (9:30)

rather says it all.

PUNISHMENT? there is only one appropriate "exile" for life.
Posted by Polycarp, Thursday, 11 September 2008 9:12:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy, Samsung

My questions were not directed at Polycarp.

I hope Foxy and Samsung will take the trouble to answer my questions and ignore Polycarp's usual diatribe.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 11 September 2008 12:28:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

You're a persistent little blighter.
And, I guess I am a pious little ...

Ok. Should the quotes you gave be illegal?

You want me to be specific.

No. The first four shouldn't be illegal. None of the
things you mentioned are physically going to
harm anyone. It's in the way people will perceive
those things. You can't ban things simply on the
way they're going to be perceived. When they don't
actually do harm in themselves.

The same goes for the last two quotes. If you google
"Evil Bible Quotes," there are many examples given
along the lines of the quotes you gave. Yet no one
bans the Bible or makes it illegal. Again it's
a question of perception. Religious and Community
leaders have to
take responsibility for the way their followers
will be inspired to behave. We can't ban things
simply because a small minority of fundies may
take the words of a religious text literally.

That's all from me Steven.
I've got the flu at the moment, and
I'm going back to bed...

Cheers
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 11 September 2008 1:03:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Foxy,

Hope your flu gets better soon.

We seem to be in complete agreement.

Nobody I know of argues that free speech includes:

--The right to libel (Hagannah B);

--The right to take part in a conspiracy to murder (Hagannah B again)

--The right to incite violence NARROWLY DEFINED (Yes, there will always be some borderline cases)

--The right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (Samsung)

We do seem to agree that free speech includes the right to attack any belief system, ideology, set of ideas or opinions. That specifically includes any religious belief system even if it offends the believers.

However some forms of attack – eg pissing on a Torah scroll with or without Nazi regalia– should not be done in a public space.

I await Samsung's reply.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 11 September 2008 1:38:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Samsung>"That's ANARCHY, which is the OPPOSITE of freedom."

Samsung>"Total free speech, and total freedom, IS anarchy."

There. This proves that you do not have a logical argument, as it's contradictory and that it is entirely conceptual and hence meaningless.

Samsung, your definition of anarchy is also entirely subjective. Greater free speech than we have now IS NOT IN ANY WAY ANARCHY.

Also, your definition of free speech is entirely absolute. Which is useless. Spreading lies about AN INDIVIDUAL, through public media or public dissemination with the intent of damaging their reputation, is a different issue than what is being discussed. As I said, none of what you or Foxy has been saying applied at all to the op, or later discussions.

Speaking of Foxy, it is a shame that people can so easily adopt others' viewpoints without reason or understanding them. Foxy copied your "ANARCHY" claim, which was irrelevant and meaningless as described above. So you propogated your viewpoint with a slogan, much like "FREEDOM is SLAVERY", and unthinkingly perhaps, it is echoed by others without criticism or inquiry. All the examples you provided, such as aasault, have absolutely nothing to do with the op, or your claims that free speech is anarchy.

People have to get over this stupid belief that the media and government has helped to create that you have a right not to be offended by someone else. Before when I said, "voice for a voice makes the whole world voiceless" it was a demonstration of this mentality and the effect it would have. Right now we live in a censored country where free speech is being worn away and replaced with a 'code' of politeness and non-offence, as causing offence is made illegal. Remember when that journalist was fired for calling Thorpe's feet "humongous"? Fired.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 11 September 2008 2:08:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
steven some of those examples should be free speech, especially yelling fire in a crowded theatre (where does it say it's not?). If people react like morons and beleive the person yelling out and stampede, that is thier own fault. Humans are reknowned liars and to believe a random stranger in such a situation is completely moronic and your own responsibility.

Most intelligent people would immediately tell the person to shut the hell up, or they would first look for evidence of a fire and disbelieve some random person.

The fire problem assumes people are morons and that the speaker is responsible for their actions. That is a bad assumption and part of the problem with our society.

The problem with other examples is that the "conspiracy to murder" becomes a thought crime. This is where ACTION, not speech is the criminal act. You should be able to say what you want, as long as you do not ACT to do so and kill someone. If I say, "someone should kill our PM", many people would laugh and agree. ACTION toward such an end is where the the crime begins to take place.

Similarly "inciting violence" is a very dubious "crime". The police incite violence against protesters. People may incite violence against a mob attacking someone, or for self defence.

This leads you to the whole sedition rubbish and all the other crimes the State wants to imprison people for daring to speak out on. Example: China views Free speech about the Tiananmen Sqr Massacre as "incitement to violence" (strike one) and part of a "conspiracy to murder government officials" (strike two). Only action to do either would amount to a crime.
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 11 September 2008 2:26:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*would amount to =should amount to
Posted by Steel, Thursday, 11 September 2008 2:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Steven,

Thanks. I am feeling a bit better.
I slept all day.

Thanks also, for making me see the difference
between a personal code of conduct and what
should be made acceptable in a civilised
society.

Dear Steel,

I was not copying Samsung, merely referring
to his earlier posts. Please re-read my post
(prior to this one).
Posted by Foxy, Thursday, 11 September 2008 6:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about this one, Steven -

<< Call to ban anti-Islam video game
Marissa Calligeros | September 14, 2008 - 9:45AM

A BRISBANE computer programmer responsible for an online game that encourages players to ''wipe out'' followers of Islam could be charged under Queensland's Anti-discrimination Act.

The man reportedly behind the game is 22-year-old petrol station attendant Eric Vaughan, whose online alias is Sigvatr.

Muslim Massacre invites players to take control of an American ''hero'' and use ''an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons'' to kill as many Muslims as possible.

Kimberlee Weatherall, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Queensland, said Mr Vaughan could be guilty of inciting hatred on the grounds of racial or religious vilification.

The maximum penalty for such an offence is six months' jail.

However, Ms Weatherall said the application of the act in an online context would be difficult. [continues] >>

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/call-to-ban-antiislam-video-game/2008/09/14/1221330622864.html

I think that such a game could be useful - for example, in providing an online activity for Islamophobes and racists that might distract them from infesting forums like OLO.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 September 2008 6:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ MORGAN,

I am not a lawyer but I think this one MAY cross the line into incitement to violence.

It is a difficult case.

Let me put it this way. If my kids were still minors living at home I would not let them play such a game.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 15 September 2008 7:17:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aaah..it's a fine point but an important one....

THE LAW.

1/ The 'racial/religious vilification' would not have any impact except in Victoria. But given that people from outside our state have been extradited to face such charges here.... hmmm maybe.

2/ "Incitement to hatred"

MEDIA METHODS we all know that a 'kill all the muslims'story makes MUCH MUCH more impact than a selective "fight against terrorists" one and those seeking wider circulation for their advertising dollar would not worry too much if the difference was not made clear in the text.

RRT2001 in fact..the 'game' is a work of art and thus is 100% exempt from the Act itself.

11. Exceptions—public conduct

A person does not contravene section 7 or 8 if the
person establishes that the person's conduct was
engaged in reasonably and in good faith—

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution
of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication,
discussion or debate made or held, or any
other conduct engaged in, for—

(i) any genuine academic, artistic,
religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) any purpose that is in the public
interest; or

(c) in making or publishing a fair and accurate
report of any event or matter of public
interest.

Now..given that I have documentary evidence that the Equal Opportunity Commission does not regard the 'mocking' of the Ten Commandments by a "character" created by an author as in any way infringing the act.. I think the author is on safe ground.

If it was argued that 'inviting players to play' incites them to hate ..then it must also be admitted the 'inviting readers to read' also incites them to hold religion in contempt.

Sorry.. Eric is safe.
Posted by Polycarp, Monday, 15 September 2008 7:57:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is an interesting point.

>>Muslim Massacre invites players to take control of an American ''hero'' and use ''an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons'' to kill as many Muslims as possible.<<

If Boaz were to stand up on a soap box in a public place and incite the crowd to a "Muslim Massacre", I suspect that would place him within the reach of the law, and be punishable through our courts.

Especially if he were to provide weapons, strategy, manpower, tactics and the opportunity to do so.

However, as someone who in his extreme youth used to play "English and Germans", with gangs of sub-teens pointing sticks at each other and going "pow, pow", I fail to see the same offence in a computer game.

The only things that have changed are the medium - over the internet, instead of over the local bomb-site - and the participants, who no longer have to live on the same street in order to play.

The action on the online game, albeit with amazing graphics and more realistic sound, is still the equivalent of kids pointing sticks and going "pow pow".

I agree with CJ. If it keeps the whack-a-mozzies amused and indoors, it can't be all bad.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 September 2008 8:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You're probably right Pericles.

As a kid I used to play "cowboys and Indians" but I've never experienced even the faintest desire to massacre Native Americans.

Still, I don’t think I would have let my kids play this game.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 15 September 2008 8:53:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, Porky would have to agree that an equivalent game targeting Christians should be legal too.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 15 September 2008 9:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ya think?

>>Of course, Porky would have to agree that an equivalent game targeting Christians should be legal too<<

I reckon he would insist on it.

It so appeals to his persecution complex, to feel that we are somehow all conspiring to attack Christianity.

He still fails to grasp that he, not his religion, is the odd man out in this game.

But a video game where we simply played shoot-em-up with an army of pompously pontificating Boazs would not have the same appeal.

Although, on second thoughts...
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 September 2008 1:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy