On "Innocence of Muslims", Violence, and Censorship.

[Ryan Gatts]

As many of you are aware, there has been a dramatic uptick in world-suck levels. The American Ambassador to Lybia was assassinated along with four other Americans. Below is a BBC story about the attack. It has a clip of Obama's speech on the subject (which I think is impressively level-headed).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19570254

Since then, the American embassy in Yemen has been attacked by angry protesters as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19584734

Many protesters and news-people have said that these attacks were in protest of a trailer for a film called "Innocence of Muslims". The film depicts the prophet Muhammad (depiction alone is already highly offensive) in an extremely negative light, as a womanizer, a pedophile, an idiot, a liar, and a thug. The film appears to be created by members of several anti-Muslim hate groups. The actors seem not to have been aware what movie they were in, and were dubbed over for the final trailer.

You can see the trailer in question here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntgzoE7rU9A 

My question(s) to Nerdfighteria is this:

Should hate-speech be censored? Free speech does not protect speech that insights violence, makes knowingly false claims, or threatens violence against a person or group. This film has clearly have inspired some violence, and generally made the world a suckier place. Is that additional world-suck greater or less than the world-suck generated by the regulation of free speech?

If hate-films should be censored, how do you decide where the line is between comedic satire, and hate-film? There is a long history of caricature and stereotype used in humor. How do you know what's too offensive?

Is the speaker responsible for the actions that occur in reaction to his speech? How would the speaker be able to predict events like this?

I know the truth resists simplicity, but these are not rhetorical questions, and I'd love to hear your thoughts, Nerdfighteria.

[Caitlin Scully]

ITS A RELGION!!!! Stop hating on them, part of this is our fault, did people really think we could insult them and they would be perfectly fine with it.  They may have went overboard but they went overboard because of us.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

How is it "Our" fault? It's the mobs fault for choosing violence. They were not obligated to protest in the manner they did. Moreover, since "we" didn't make the rather stupid video, who exactly are you talking about? Are you suggesting the government should ban all religiously offensive material.

[Caitlin Scully]

it's not only the person who made the videos fault when the goverment found out about the video it should have been destroyed and no im trying to say though violence wasn't the answer how did we think they wouldn't react in some way and this from and 11 year olds understanding

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

it's not only the person who made the videos fault when the goverment found out about the video it should have been destroyed

Two words. Free speech. The guy has every right to make this stupid piece of rubbish.

[Latch33570]

It isn't our fault. That is ridiculous. They don't have to react like that. Those people have the right to prove how ignorant they are about whatever religion they want. The ignorant people on the other side can choose to ignore this teaching opportunity and show their ignorance too. But should not resort to killing.  

[Abreo]

Because if you critique somebody and they get angry and murder people it's your fault. They didn't go overboard because of us, if they cannot allow themselves to be criticized it isn't our job or our responsibility to give in because giving in encourages such behavior in the long-term. If killing people allowed them to get what they want they're not going to stop killing people. 

[Ryan Gatts]

No need for capslock and superfluous exclamation marks. My topic is not about hating religion or even about assigning blame, it's about the validity and protection of inflammatory speech.

I assume your answer to my question is "No, we should not censor hate speech, but we shouldn't use it anyway". Is that correct? Would you care to elaborate?

Again, this topic is not about placing blame for the atrocities, it's about speech, censorship, and responsibility.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Again, this topic is not about placing blame for the atrocities, it's about speech, censorship, and responsibility.

 

In this context, is not "responsibility" a synonym for "blame"? IE who is responsible for this? Who is to blame for this?

[Ryan Gatts]

I see your point, but I do not concede that they are synonymous in this instance. I am responsible for my language, certainly. But am I to blame for what happens because of them? Those are very different things, as I see them.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I see your point, but I do not concede that they are synonymous in this instance. I am responsible for my language, certainly. But am I to blame for what happens because of them? Those are very different things, as I see them.

 

I agree with you there, but I think there are different kinds of responsability etc. I've mentioned this as an example before. If a woman gets raped, 100% of the responsability for that is with the rapist, but it does not take any responsability away from him that she should take care of herself in certian ways. Her failure to do that does not make the rapist less responsable.

[Ryan Gatts]

Dude. I know you're playing devil's advocate, but you are going down a terrible terrible road with this, and I will not follow you. I'm happy to keep discussing semantics of responsibility with you, but you should probably try again with a different example.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Okay then, lets take a burgled house. The burglar has 100% responsibility for their actions, but that doesn't stop the home owner from being responsible for locking their front door.