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).
Since then, the American embassy in Yemen has been attacked by angry protesters as well.
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.
I'm new here, so it's not like I am a seasoned veteran regarding such discussions, but here 's my opinion Mobeen, what Vivian said is less of a abnormality than what you said. Language changes a lot every couple of centuries. I sometimes see books 150 years old (not in English by the way, as it is not my birth language) and find myself amused at how things change. Plenty words had some changes in the spelling, and even though the language I speak comes from Latin, that doesn't help me much in understanding a text in said language. Now, if you take the bible ( in order not to start anything), even those in English usually come in some more archaic form. And you'll need a lot of studies to take on the even more ancient languages these texts come in.
What makes you think that YOU KNOW the "facts" about a religion and a way of life that doesn't even concern you?
Well, that is why we discuss isn't it? The whole point is for all of us to come out richer, so let's put down the blowtorches for a second. The Koran is written in a classic form of Arabic. On the other hand, the Arabic spoken in the Maghreb is quite different from that of Iraq. That is because all these dialects have been evolving for centuries by different people in different lands. On the other hand, the percentage of people that can read or reach an higher education in developing countries is undoubtedly lower, specially regarding women. Even if you ask most Christians what the bible said about slavery or women's rights they'd probably don't know or be embarrassed to answer.
Sadly the problem with fundamentalists are the foundations and not the people per se, or else you'd see people of all beliefs rioting and attacking embassies worldwide daily.
Try screaming for help in a crowded room but, with no one listening..... That's how we feel pretty much...
This is a space of discussion so it's fine to speak, and I hate to break it to you, but having something to say in the real world doesn't mean people will agree with it. And respecting your own beliefs isn't the same as enforcing them upon myself. The same way even foreign women must wear the burqa in some muslim countries because culture forces them to,in others,muslim women are free to wear it or not, because culture there allows them to chose.
This draws the line. This movie should be wiped off, and taken down.
I cannot agree with you any anyway possible. Sorry. "I may not agree with what you say, but i'll defend to death your right to say it"
you and I are clearly in agreement on the first part (the assertion of historical fact), and I understand why you would want the movie to be "wiped off, and taken down", but I don't think that that's the civilized response to the situation.
I agree that the man who created 'The Innocence of Muslims' is being a bastard about the whole thing, but I don't think you really want to make a world where someone gets to decide whether a particular bit of speech should exist or not. That would give outside forces the ability to ban books and censor speech; this very discussion might not be considered unhateful enough to exist.
I feel that it is not the place of an outside force to decide what can be said and what cannot. I would have liked the creator of the movie to have taken it down, or not made it in the first place, but I cannot justify any authoritarian attempt to remove it.
What's your perspective?
I agree! This is a free country, darn it :) I think that censorship is a very dangerous road, and the lines need to be firm on what can and should be censored so our rights can't be infringed upon. In this case, as in most cases, I don't think it is justifiable for any authority to take it down.
Q1 the hate scene should be censored because what you find entertaining might be others appauling
Q2 it all depends on the response if it makes suck then you should delete it not put petrol on flames
Q3 he should be responsible besides if you dont know about hte topic you should not make a film about it
Vertigo has already spoken on the all encompassing nature of your response to Q1, but I'm interested in the answer to Q3. How can you know if you know something? What if I made a film in the 80s about dinosaurs? I would be wrong only from the perspective informed by more modern understanding. Also, who is to say what's definitively true in history? Who won the war of 1812? Americans claim they won, and the Canadians claim they won. Certainly this shouldn't be possible, and yet both truths exist.
Facts and truths are ambiguous at best. They are the results of 'winners' in history and not who was right or what was real and true. And sooner or later the truth is completely lost so i agree with you Ryan.
But the person who made the film should have know better with what is going on currently. When people use common sense and respect we won't need as many laws as we have today. Hopefully people will start using common sense sooner rather than later.
I don't think that the attack was in response to the video, as there has been a lot of evidence suggesting that this was pre-planned. I also blame the attackers for the murder, not the video. Although this was indeed a sucky video, I don't think that it, or anything like it should be censored. There is clearly something wrong if watching a video incites you to kill someone. Getting offended is not a good excuse for killing someone. I wish the focus was a bit less on the video and more on the people who killed an innocent person, and what we should do about them. I didn't really like the President apologizing about the video and not really addressing the real issue at hand, which is that a group of hate-filled men killed our ambassador who had been doing his job faithfully and well for a number of years. It makes me sad that there will probably never be justice in this case. Thanks for the question, debates like this are really nice!