This is okay but cartoons are not?

[ZipperHead]

As an example as to how a symbol can be used in ways that it was not meant too...click here http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/free_zundel_rally_july04-pictures.html *Disclaimer* It's not a website you want your kids to see, consider yourself warned.

And look here too to see someone's opinions on this...http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/002405.html

In case some of you were wondering how I find these sites, I find white power/neo nazi groups an...odd bunch and have done some research into them, I don't regularily browse these places for the fun of it.

Didn't Pete Townsend (of The Who) get into some trouble with this line of reasoning  ;D Don't worry, I'm kidding, and find both subjects (pedophilia and white power) equally repugnant, but I agree that one should be free to research anything, if the goal is to gain an understanding of how "these" people think, particularily for those that need to combat them (to protect those at risk).

Al

 

[Gunnar]

Anyway, I think that there have to be some limits to what constitutes freedom of speech and expression. How is this defined, and who does the defining? 'Society' is the short answer, and 'law-makers' is the longer answer. What's the definitive answer? There isn't one, I think, and 'round and 'round it will go.

As soon as you say this,  you've effectively killed free speech.  Free societies involve a couple of freedoms that nobody likes to talk about.  One is the freedom to offend and be offended.  The other is the freedom to be stupid and to do stupid things, like refuse to wear a seatbelt.

I happen to think the world tour t-shirt IS funny, but for the gentleman in question, he was unable to see the joke in light of his own experience.  You, being the kind of person you are, may not wish to further offend a veteran in this way, and may voluntarily choose not to wear the shirt again.  However, where does that give you the right to take away MY expression of MY sense of humour, if I don't give a damn who I offend...? 

I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing.  I'm simply saying that freedom of expression is an all or nothing proposition.  Also, under freedom of expression, you are free to censure (not censor) those who do things which are not in line with your personal belief system.  Tell the young puke he's being rude, uncultured, etc.  Refuse to have anything to do with him...well and good.  But you can't forbid his opinions or sense of humour.

So in a free society, you can be offended by portrayals of Donald Duck (who never wears any pants, and is destroying the moral fibre of our nation thereby), but you don't have a right to demand that he be expunged from popular culture, or to sue as a result.  Being free to choose what offends you is part of living in a free country.  However, in a free country, you can still protest, complain, write letters and organise your neighbours to expunge this pantsless symbol of EEEVIL from society...

Since when is there a freedom not to be offended?  And if there is, then why am I only allowed to be offended by certain things?  Why is being offended by Nazi propaganda somehow different than being offended by forced racial integration if you happen to be a Nazi?

I've always believed that those who advocate censorship for "hate speech" etc. are actually doing harm to the cause they propose to support.  If the government can censor certain types of speech, it allows the population to get used to the fact that the government somehow has the right to do this.  Then, when everyone is used to that, there will always be "just one more thing".  Soon, the government can tell you that your religion or belief system needs censorship, and maybe you shouldn't be allowed that religion...and then you can demonize those who do things the government won't permit, and then if some thugs wreck the homes and shops of those who are doing those outlawed things, then maybe that's OK too....

The best way to combat poor ideas and beliefs is to use better ideas and facts which blatantly contradict poor ideas.  Spend some time at http://www.remember.org and see how convincing racist web sites are after that.  Consider the level of education of the people involved (on both sides of an argument), the facts and ideas presented, and evaluate their ideas on their merits.  You'll soon find out who the idiots are.

Note that while you are free to be offended, or to believe anything you wish, you are not free to contravene the law.  Thus, you can hate racists, or you can hate (insert minority here), but you can't go and burn down their houses, our counsel people to do so.  That's arson, or fomenting insurrection, and you've left the realm of freedom of *speech* when you go down that route.

 

[ZipperHead]

Gunnar, my point (which always seems to be elusive) was that who can define freedom, of anything? You mention contravening laws. Who writes them? Who enforces them? Who follows them? Am I free to contravene the law, as a basic freedom? Why not? Why?

I guess my point is: there is no easy answer. Absolute freedom of speech (to use the most common example) would allow one to yell "Fire!!!!" in a crowded theater, and walk away chuckling, knowing that you could get off Scot free. Is this acceptable to you?

I believe in freedom's, but there have to be limits. To be able to argue this IS a freedom. If this is a wishy-washy approach, sue me, but I can't accept the all or nothing approach. Either way is inviting anarchy. Life is about compromises, so society has to be able to compromise on where freedom's begin and end. There are always arguments about rights, but responsibilities have to come to the fore before rights.

Al

 

[Gunnar]

Actually, the common law has eliminated your right to yell "fire" because it is a generally accepted principle that it's a bad thing to do.  The purpose of freedom of speech is freedom to express ideas.  What ideas are you advocating when you endanger a large group of people for no reason?

However, when you start talking about the limits of freedom and why, you have left the political realm and moved into philosophy.  You are certainly free to argue this...this is your right.  However, I am merely pointing out that freedom of speech implies *freedom* of speech, and when you start *legislating* what people will and won't be allowed to say/think, then it is no longer freedom.

Who writes the laws?  We do.  They are based on the idea that there are certain shared principles with which we all agree, like murder is a bad thing, stealing is anti-social, etc., etc.  Society is a big club of people with shared basic premises.  When you decide not to obey laws, you are opting out of that club, and society usually arranges things so that you can't play with us any more.  What I object to is when the executive committee of our club decides that the new game is Beat on Gunnar.  I didn't join the club for this, and I object to paying fees so that a social clique can beat on me.  This is why Jefferson said that revolution is the natural manure of democracy...because there will always be those cliques, and they need to be reminded from time to time that democracy is a voluntary, participatory sport.

Your elusive question seems to be more along the lines of "What is the nature of freedom, and how do you know it?", and justifying the nature of freedom to you is a lot more effort than it is worth to me.  You need to look into philosophy for that.  On a political level, you can discuss it for ages, but all polemics involve arguing someone back to certain shared premises, and pointing out why one party's conclusions are inconsistent.  If that person doesn't share your premises, or has little or no instruction in the basic premises, it is really pointless to argue on implementation...

Freedoms have limits, but  you need to know what freedoms are required by our nature as human beings, and what natural limits that implies.  The law is simply a best-fit line on shared principles.  I'm simply saying that when you move the line so far out of my reach as to tell me what I can and can't say, that it is no longer a best-fit line on SHARED principles of freedom, but that it moves beyond freedom into something else, and  you can't claim that I should support the club on the basis of freedom any more.

 

[a_majoor]

The First Amendment of the American Constitution says:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Although the Framers of the Constitution had political speech in mind (in their recent past, it was possible to be arrested for publishing pamphlets or even different translations or versions of the Bible), the First amendment is flexible enough to cover the National Enquirer, "People" magazine, the New York Times or the "Turner Diaries", even though they could never have imagined anything like three out of the four examples.

The First Amendment does not cover threats, liable or slander, and specifically exempts violent demonstrations or the use of force from its protection. Unlike our Constitution act, these freedoms are absolute, no judge, legislature or even the executive can limit free speech. This compares rather favourably to the ambiguous language of the Constitution act of 1982:

Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Smart lawyers can drive trucks through that one, it is open to fairly subjective interpretation.

 

[STONEY]

To change the train of thought for a moment i came across the Danish cartoons while surfing the net one day and was somewhat
puzzled so i thought i'd try a little experiment. I downloaded them and showed them to some co-workers not telling them what they were. Their reaction was the same as mine when i revealed the source. Most of the cartoons were completely incomprehensible & looked like a childs doodling and meant nothing to the viewer. The rest of the cartoons only one was found funny the remainder mildly amusing to some and  not to others. Don't know how anyone looking at them figured they refered to the profit Mohammed as mohammed is the most common name in the muslim world and it was only used in one cartoon refering to a guy who was looking at a police lineup. Maybe the Danes have a different sence of humour. I wonder if all the people rioting around the world have actually seen them or just been told that they are offensive.

Cheers

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Bingo,
Just doing what they are told....I was watching one newscast and realized  that a bunch in the front of a "demonsration" were holding and looking at cell phones.
Now I hardly ever turn my cell phone on and when someone later explained text messaging to me the whole scenario made sense as I had watched the whole front move as one towards whatever embassy they were after.......and it hit me, they had just received the word to rush all together probably from whomever was paying for this particular demonstration.

One thing, it was so convenient and just damn nice of the "security" to allow the press to move past them and setup those nice tripods so that they got "real good angles" of it all........Hmmmmmm...

 

[zipperhead_cop]

A few days ago there was some press coverage of a mosque getting trashed in Iraq, and a bunch of people having an absolute fit over it (and don't think for a second that it wasn't ex-pats trying to screw up the US efforts there and foment a civil war, but I digress...).  But what struck me was a guy running around screaming his head off with what looked like a framed portrait of an Arab man.  I think it was a picture of Mohammad, but (ironically) the only other picture that I have seen was the one in the Danish cartoon with the bomb turban.  What gives?  If there are some parts of Islam that allow portrayals of Mohammad and even to post them, they should be stepping up and separating themselves from the radicals that are using the cartoons as a violence excuse.  Of course, then they couldn't quietly sit back and enjoy the anti Western violence and mockingly shake their heads saying "Oh, my.  How terrible".

 

[Michael Dorosh]

(and don't think for a second that it wasn't ex-pats trying to screw up the US efforts there and foment a civil war).  But what struck me

You have no way of knowing one way or another, though, so on what authority would you have us believe you?

was a guy running around screaming his head off with what looked like a framed portrait of an Arab man.  I think it was a picture of Mohammad,

But you don't know that either.

How about we stick to stuff we do know, or can reasonably surmise?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You have no way of knowing one way or another, though, so on what authority would you have us believe you?

Nope.  Pure unfounded conspiricy theorizing.  Again I highlight the need for a [sarcasm] smiley icon.

But you don't know that either.

How about we stick to stuff we do know, or can reasonably surmise?

Easy there, cranky.  Sure, it could have been a picture of Papa Smurf out of make up.  I just was wondering if anyone else saw the footage, and if anyone had any knowledge of any secular laws in Islam concerning the images of Mohammad. 

 

[zipperhead_cop]

You know it is interesting that if someone repeats a lie long enough they will believe it.

Since I read so many poster refer to the hindu "SWASTIKA" as the origin of the Nazi haukenkreuz.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika     

I thought I would add the following ..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fylfot

so what about the cartoons?  It seems I have heard learned Muslim scholars say that Islam prohibits the drawing of animals, humans, etc but then I see all the anti-jewish and western cartoons in newspapers and carried during demonstrations....what gives?

Hah.  That looks like a poorly drawn swastika.  I'm betting that all this symbolic argument could  be summed up by putting it into practice.  People should sew or iron on a buddist swastika, or one of those fylfot's on a shirt, then go walk around Compton, Los Angeles.  When they are getting a bat 'upside their head or a gun down their throat, they can claim "but it's a fylfot, I'm not a racist".  Whatever, dude.

Double standards are the herald of the zealots, so that is why they can't put up whatever they want and get away with it.  When I get back to my home computer (currently on vacation) I will cut and paste some bits from a translated Al Qaeda training manual that I have.  Pretty scary stuff when it is backed up with religious justifications.  Basically they can get away with anything, including cutting off beards and gambling as long as it serves the goal of the cell (because that serves Allah).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I got your point and I agree.  Originally these things were benign.  But someone had to wreck it for everyone, and now the lasting impression will be a poor one.  Wait until "The DaVinci Code" comes out.  People will be going nuts seeing Masonic and "sacred feminine" symbology everywhere.

 

[a_majoor]

Some interesting commentary on what is "acceptable" and what is not.

The first link is of a front page picture presented by the LA Times of an American soldier who was injured. As many of the commentators pointed out, the LA Times does not run front page pictures of injured Firemen or Police officers, nor of the victims of terrorism: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008371.php

The second link is about the upcoming movie "United 93". There seems to be an urge to sweep this film under the rug, since it is "too scary" and people are "not ready" for it. Five years after the event people are "not ready"?; or perhaps if people saw the film, they might walk away with a different set of ideas than the liberal establishment would like them to have. http://eddriscoll.com/archives/008878.php

 

[Fry]

S_Baker, you've nailed this one home for sure. I can't stand hyprocisy. The picture can definately be taken as offensive, it's just all about the context it's presented in. For example, a swastika can be used in a valid way. It is infact a religious symbol that Hitler adopted. Or Odin's cross... that is basically an even cross with a ring behind it. Some consider it a form of white supremacy, why I don't know... It's also a religious symbol and is to be regarded in the form presented. Even though the confed pic is a definate fake, anyone posting it with innapropriate intentions are looking for a warning at least.

Good post all around. Cheers.

 

[Steel Badger]

Odins cross is just a spin put on a celtic sun symbol...

Its origins are very hazy but it has been co-opted many many times by many people...most notably celtic christians




Interestingly enough the much beloved "peace" symbol is the "Eohl" rune once inscribe on the shields of Norse warriors for protection....


SB

 

[Fry]

The othala, life, and tyr runes are also regarded as possible white supremacy symbols, but are to be regarded in the context that they're presented in.

For those wondering about hate symbols, phrases, etc... this is a good website, it explains a lot.

http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/default_graphics.asp

ADL and Law Enforcement

ADL fights hatred, extremism and terrorism. Our goal: to make the world a safer place. Over the past few years, we have expanded our expertise and capabilities to confront a more dangerous world.

 

[bbbb]

US=TOLERANCE, THEM=INTOLLERANCE.  US+THEM=DOUBLE STANDARD. 

There certainly are double-standards. Well said.

 

[Thompson_JM]

There certainly are double-standards. Well said.

Dude, exactly what is your MOC??? "Obvious Tech"?

 

[Good2Golf]

Dude, exactly what is your MOC??? "Obvious Tech"?

"Obvious but improper user of grammer tech"

There are v. there are certainly double-standards...

Although I will give bbbb this; he was heading for the appropriate third person plural form (there are) vice the singular third-person form (there's) that folks seem to often use incorrectly with a third-person plural subject. Half a kudo! 

Cheers,
Duey