Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Um_Abd

France Enters Muslim Cartoon Row

Recommended Posts

There are provisions in law for two cases that limit free speech: obscene material and a compelling government interest. (According to US law). This material is obscene material and this material is against demark govt. interest bcoz the govt. is loosing its interest in middle east. Its responsibility of govt. to promote the goodwill not the stupid creations. Every thing can't be explained by logic there is another world beyond logic, its called wisdom.. remember plz..

 

Another question: What is the motive behind the cartoons?(With respect to demark politics)

 

 

First off, it is only considered obscene by Muslims, if we restricted speech to that which wasn't offensive to anyone, then we'd all have to take vows of silence. Second they were not directed at the Danish government or their direct interest. It was Muslim reaction and not the cartoons themselves which affected Danish interests.

 

Look, I am not defending the cartoons themselves, what I am defending is freedom of speech. A for the motive, I'm not the creator of the cartoon, so I cannot speak for them.

Edited by US_Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
First off, it is only considered obscene by Muslims, if we restricted speech to that which wasn't offensive to anyone, then we'd all have to take vows of silence.

 

Bingo! I don't know about obscenity laws in Denmark, but they are very specific in the United States. They even go so far as to name body parts and specific words, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you blame some Muslim's for not liking Westerners? Look at who started this issue! Look at who continued to escalate this issue!

 

If you don't like someone, there's a reason for that. "You Just don't wake up and say: I'm in the mood to hate someone"...

Well, they need to get off the fence and do something about it, this is a two way street...

 

Muslims attempted to negotiate and have these cartoons not published, but the Danes refused and they published it. In the end they were forced to apologize! They could have done that in the beginning and avoided all of this...

 

But they wanted this to be in our face...

 

Now we have idiots from other nation's Joining in spreading these cartoons...

We'll deal with this in the manner that is befitting..

This isn't a case of sticks and stones may break my bones. And this isn't "teasing"... they Insulted the Prophet (PBUH)...

 

And something like this or tearing up the Qur'an isn't simple at all...

 

Don't try to analyze this with Christian or Western eyes. If you guys let this kind of thing pass by that's up to you, but don't apply your reasoning to us. We take our religion very seriously...

 

And Muslims aren't fueling Islamophobia, it's our Western papers, experts, politicians, religious leaders and warmongers...

 

Again, you're Jumping all over the reaction, but not the catalyst...

 

1) There was NEVER any negotiation of the publication of drawings. In the west, we don't have to negotiate with the holders of power, before publishing our content.

2) Denmark is for danes and if danish eyes endorse Jyllandsposten, than it's all good. We don't whine all day long because the iranian government have banned our pornflicks. If you don't wanna watch it, don't. But don't for one second believe that you have a say in what we watch.

3) We were certainly not forced to apologize and I don't endorse the apology by the newspaper, but that's their business, not mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) There was NEVER any negotiation of the publication of drawings. In the west, we don't have to negotiate with the holders of power, before publishing our content.

2) Denmark is for danes and if danish eyes endorse Jyllandsposten, than it's all good. We don't whine all day long because the iranian government have banned our pornflicks. If you don't wanna watch it, don't. But don't for one second believe that you have a say in what we watch.

3) We were certainly not forced to apologize and I don't endorse the apology by the newspaper, but that's their business, not mine.

ya watch whatever you like for the 40, 50 60 70 80 90 100 years you are on earth for, but please keep them AWAY FROM ME!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are provisions in law for two cases that limit free speech: obscene material and a compelling government interest. (According to US law). This material is obscene material and this material is against demark govt. interest bcoz the govt. is loosing its interest in middle east. Its responsibility of govt. to promote the goodwill not the stupid creations. Every thing can't be explained by logic there is another world beyond logic, its called wisdom.. remember plz..

 

Another question: What is the motive behind the cartoons?(With respect to demark politics)

Neither obscene material nor anti-government material is illegal here. That's sort of the idea of free speech. A civil right we faught wars for a few centuries back here in Europe. You can have material taken down if it's a vendetta targeted against yourself, so I encourage the prophet to show up in court in Copenhagen and file a libelsuit against Jyllandsposten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neither obscene material nor anti-government material is illegal here. That's sort of the idea of free speech. A civil right we faught wars for a few centuries back here in Europe. You can have material taken down if it's a vendetta targeted against yourself, so I encourage the prophet to show up in court in Copenhagen and file a libelsuit against Jyllandsposten.

But sertainly anti cia is not exceptable, neither is debating on holocaust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But sertainly anti cia is not exceptable, neither is debating on holocaust.

But certainly yes it is. I encourage you to fly to Denmark and browse some of our libraries where all issues of all major newspapers published within the last century or so is stored. You'll find crackpots enough to build a powerplant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can blast the CIA all you want in America, heck, if you couldn't half the comedians in AMerica would be in jail. You can also debate the Holocaust in the US, Britain, and Denmark. You can discuss it in any country you want, there are just a few that won't allow it to be denied is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But certainly yes it is. I encourage you to fly to Denmark and browse some of our libraries where all issues of all major newspapers published within the last century or so is stored. You'll find crackpots enough to build a powerplant.

no dude, i dont like the weird looks on my side or the "Look its a muslim", or "Terrorist" that erally shows how effective your "Freedom of speech" law works or your "Free turthful media". these people dont even think, if there were over 1.5 billion terrorists (muslims) would there be anyone left on earth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does it stop? Where does this twisted definition of freedom of speech stop? Where does freedom stop?

 

If I wanted to go kill a person because I wanted to take something of his why should I be stopped…I’m free, no one has a right to stop me from anything…

 

What kind of twisted logic is this freedom of speech? Where are simple human morals? Decency?

 

Now freedom means immorality? I can insult a billion’s people way of life and role model and I have no right to be upset, protest, or show my displeasure about it!

 

Tell me when should one be upset?

 

They have invaded us, took our resources, killed our men, women, and children and now ridiculing what we stand for and what we believe in and what! We are being ridiculous and over doing it.

 

So I can ridicule any race for example? Will not be called a racist for it? If I had their logic then I would say its freedom of speech…pfft

 

What they did is not more than a low, immoral, they shouldn’t be called humans even since they thought they had a delusional right of disrespecting a billion of more person in this Earth and then saying what’s wrong, why you are upset!

 

 

Edit: The Norwegian government apologized by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace,

 

I think most children around age 8 or 9 learn that reacting to name calling isn't a good way of stopping it. Salman Rushdie made a career for himself by writing a truly rubbish book that would otherwise have been attracting moths in public libraries were it not for the actions of 'well-wishing' Muslims calling for his head on a plate. This Danish newspaper published cartoons which would otherwise have a readership of 10 people living on a pig farm in rural Denmark.

 

Yet both times the same thing happens. The Satanic Verses sells millions of copies despite it being truly awful as a book, and these cartoons which otherwise would never have been seen again (because they're rubbish) are appearing accross the globe. Both Salman Rushdie and the creators of these cartoons can now enjoy a happy and wealthy retirement, not because they have any talent but because unlike most people, those that are calling for sanctions/executions do not appear to have learnt at age 9 that reacting to somebody who calls you names does not make it stop. If you want to make it stop then you demonstrate to the bully that you're better than them by being better people, by earning respect and not trying to fight fire with wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does it stop? Where does this twisted definition of freedom of speech stop? Where does freedom stop?

 

For the most part, and I am generalizing a bit, the accepted boundry of freedom of expression is physical harm. If your expression involves the physical harm of another individual then you've gone too far by western standards. Insulting someone does not cause them physical harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, it is only considered obscene by Muslims, if we restricted speech to that which wasn't offensive to anyone, then we'd all have to take vows of silence. Second they were not directed at the Danish government or their direct interest. It was Muslim reaction and not the cartoons themselves which affected Danish interests.

Its not only obscene but its creating law and order situation baby... second! !! The reaction is muslim's right and you know the reason, so find out the root cause. Kill the disease(stupid actions like cartoons) instead of patient (muslim reaction)

Look, I am not defending the cartoons themselves, what I am defending is freedom of speech. A for the motive, I'm not the creator of the cartoon, so I cannot speak for them.

Freedom of speech has limits, a speech without wisdom is ##...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no dude, i dont like the weird looks on my side or the "Look its a muslim", or "Terrorist" that erally shows how effective your "Freedom of speech" law works or your "Free turthful media". these people dont even think, if there were over 1.5 billion terrorists (muslims) would there be anyone left on earth?

Should I bother composing a comprehensive reply or will you just ignore it?

You accussed our media of favoring jews or american agencies. I challenge you to research that. But if you're not into enlightment, I won't force you. But please refrain from making accusations against a country you've never been to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I bother composing a comprehensive reply or will you just ignore it?

You accussed our media of favoring jews or american agencies. I challenge you to research that. But if you're not into enlightment, I won't force you. But please refrain from making accusations against a country you've never been to.

favoring jews... lol would that even need research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should I bother composing a comprehensive reply or will you just ignore it?

You accussed our media of favoring jews or american agencies. I challenge you to research that. But if you're not into enlightment, I won't force you. But please refrain from making accusations against a country you've never been to.

Actually i have changed my mind, never heard of denmark backing up israel or anything... bu tthose cartoons were certainly immature... and then refusing to apologise was even worse, you know that the cartoons really hurt Muslims and Hurt them BAD!, atleasst you could ask your little cartoonists to apologise, but instead you went good job cartoonists we are really proud of you, you really reflect denmark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam,

 

favoring jews... lol would that even need research

 

and with comments like that you wonder why the rest of the world has such negative opinions of Muslims?

 

Toleration people, it means taking a deep breath, biting your tongue and feeling morally superior because you've shown 'you're' better than 'them'.

 

To write to the government/paper is reasonable; to boycott Danish goods is reasonable, but greatly disproportionate; to make bomb threats and burn flags...are those (the latter group) trying to make the world dislike 1.5 billion people?

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the most part, and I am generalizing a bit, the accepted boundry of freedom of expression is physical harm. If your expression involves the physical harm of another individual then you've gone too far by western standards. Insulting someone does not cause them physical harm.

 

Peace

 

What about reputation?

 

I know that in Western society mobbing, backbiting, and assassination of someone's reputation is part of freedom of expression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the west, we don't have to negotiate with the holders of power, before publishing our content.

Yes we do when it benefits us in some way...

 

Example, if a paper like the New York Times wanted to publish a sensitive article--like a security or military matter--the government negotiates for a delay or forbids it from publishing that article...

 

We always hide behind national security, even if the articles have nothing to do with national security...

 

It's a convenient method to avoid accountability for one's actions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

and with comments like that you wonder why the rest of the world has such negative opinions of Muslims?

 

Toleration people, it means taking a deep breath, biting your tongue and feeling morally superior because you've shown 'you're' better than 'them'.

 

To write to the government/paper is reasonable; to boycott Danish goods is reasonable, but greatly disproportionate; to make bomb threats and burn flags...are those (the latter group) trying to make the world dislike 1.5 billion people?

 

Peace and Love,

 

DARLA

ever heard of what george bush's says? maybe you need to changhe a little here and there from your post so it sounds something like this to bush

and with comments like that you wonder why the Muslims has such negative opinions of America?

 

You invade our land, kill our brothers, steal our land, force your system on us, insult our Prophet and then you expect us to be tolerant. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace

 

What about reputation?

 

I know that in Western society mobbing, backbiting, and assassination of someone's reputation is part of freedom of expression.

Yes, you can criticise anyone as much as you please as long as you don't present lies as truth. In that case, the offended party can retaliate with a libel suit. I can freely accuse my primeminister of being a corrupt suicidebomber if I can present evidence that he has received bribes and prove that he posses explosives designed for suicidebombing. If I can't do that then:

 

This one will fly: I think that our primeminister is engaged in corruption and I imagine he might be planning a suicidebombing

While this one won't: Our primeminister is engaged in massive corruption and he's plotting a deadly suicideblast.

 

The first one is freedom of expression, while the second one is deception.

 

Since Muhammed has never been seen, there is no reason why he couldn't look like one of the 12 drawings suggests. But even if we did know how Muhammed looks like, it still doesn't criminalize the newspapers since the drawings were never presented as factual illustration, but as creative imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we do when it benefits us in some way...

 

Example, if a paper like the New York Times wanted to publish a sensitive article--like a security or military matter--the government negotiates for a delay or forbids it from publishing that article...

 

We always hide behind national security, even if the articles have nothing to do with national security...

 

It's a convenient method to avoid accountability for one's actions...

Proof? If something holds a confidential stamp, of course. But these drawings are topsecret plans for the recolonization of Norway and Sweden, they are just drawings, made completely independently of danish government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proof? If something holds a confidential stamp, of course. But these drawings are topsecret plans for the recolonization of Norway and Sweden, they are just drawings, made completely independently of danish government.

Govt. need to analyse the situation dude.. every good thing is not a right thing, how can a bad thing can be a right? There is no exact limitations for freedom of speech. But the law says: obscene material and a compelling government interest. --- among governments around the globe (at least the democratic ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

and with comments like that you wonder why the rest of the world has such negative opinions of Muslims?

 

DARLA

It's not Just the comments made by Muslims, non-Muslims share a responsibilty of demonizing Islam also...

 

No disrespect intended, but most non-Christian's don't have a favorable image of Christians nor Jews either...

 

It's amazing how we in the West constantly absolve ourselves from the acts we attribute to Muslims...

 

We definitely don't smell like a bed of roses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×