Chris Phelps
New member
...
More about the danish cartoonists...
- Thread starter Chris Phelps
- Start date
fisherman66
New member
I read a similar report that put the bounty at around $15,000. An Iranian cleric did the same thing to Soloman Rushdie. He's still kicking last I heard. I'd be willing to donate to an offshore group that puts a price on the cleric's head who made this ruling. I mean, it's only fair; right? I'd draw a cartoon too, but my art skills are somewhat lacking.
fisherman66
New member
You don't spend much time in public restrooms, do you? Me neither.
Chris Phelps
New member
Perhaps a diagram (which has been proven to work) of a nuclear bomb big enough to detonate the entire world.
As far as what your average cartoonist can draw? No way.
Re the "rewards" offered by a Pakistani cleric and an Indian state minister,see original post, I wonder as to the source of some of the money offered, which is to ask the following. How much of this cash might have originated in U.S. Taxpayer Provided Foreign Aid?
Mind, I do not know that any did, however I find the possibility worthy of thought.
Mind, I do not know that any did, however I find the possibility worthy of thought.
It is ridiculous to put out a reward for a cartoonist.
Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."
To think he could do that and not suffer some potentially bad results makes him pretty stupid. Too bad the results did not happen to him and not so many others.
Jerry
Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."
To think he could do that and not suffer some potentially bad results makes him pretty stupid. Too bad the results did not happen to him and not so many others.
Jerry
fisherman66
New member
While I acknowledge that this issue does not fall under the perview of our law, I see freedom of speech as an inalienable right. It seems you could perhaps see shades of gray.
Freedon of speech, like all other "rights" is not without limitations. That has been proven in the courts of this nation.
To do as that cartoonist did, and knowing the liklihood of violent reactions makes him guilty to some degree for the damage, and deaths which resulted.
One might think he has the right to make a racist cartoon here, and have it published in major newspapers, but if it caused riots, and death he would be guilty.
Liberty must go hand-in-hand with responsibility. I have the liberty to do some things that might cause harm, but I also have the liberty not to do them. I don't feel the necessity to prove that I have liberty to the detriment of others, and to my nation.
Acting responsibly requires that I consider the consequences of my actions, and that is more important than proving that I can say or do as I please.
Jerry
To do as that cartoonist did, and knowing the liklihood of violent reactions makes him guilty to some degree for the damage, and deaths which resulted.
One might think he has the right to make a racist cartoon here, and have it published in major newspapers, but if it caused riots, and death he would be guilty.
Liberty must go hand-in-hand with responsibility. I have the liberty to do some things that might cause harm, but I also have the liberty not to do them. I don't feel the necessity to prove that I have liberty to the detriment of others, and to my nation.
Acting responsibly requires that I consider the consequences of my actions, and that is more important than proving that I can say or do as I please.
Jerry
fisherman66
New member
You seem to absolve the rioters of guilt in this case. This is not an issue of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Apples to oranges.
[You seem to absolve the rioters of guilt in this case. This is not an issue of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Apples to oranges.]
No at all. The rioters are responsible for their actions whatever the provocation. However, I continue to be persuaded that one who is an instigator also is responsible. It is not too different from yelling "Fire."
If I do something that makes you angry at someone else, and you were to harm them, then I am also responsible. You are not excused from your own actions, and must suffer the consequences, but I am also guilty.
Some time ago someone wrote a book that stirred up the Muslims, and they put a price on his head, if I remember correctly. Is it not obvious that if you insult their religion in such a high profile way they are going to retaliate with violence? It is obvious to me. It is an action that has no good thing, and maybe some very bad things. No one should do such things just to prove he can. Sometimes it costs more than you want to pay.
In fact I do not think that anyone's religion should be made fun of. It is necessary sometimes to expose the error of a religion, and to say so, but that is not the same as making fun of it and its founder.
Jerry
No at all. The rioters are responsible for their actions whatever the provocation. However, I continue to be persuaded that one who is an instigator also is responsible. It is not too different from yelling "Fire."
If I do something that makes you angry at someone else, and you were to harm them, then I am also responsible. You are not excused from your own actions, and must suffer the consequences, but I am also guilty.
Some time ago someone wrote a book that stirred up the Muslims, and they put a price on his head, if I remember correctly. Is it not obvious that if you insult their religion in such a high profile way they are going to retaliate with violence? It is obvious to me. It is an action that has no good thing, and maybe some very bad things. No one should do such things just to prove he can. Sometimes it costs more than you want to pay.
In fact I do not think that anyone's religion should be made fun of. It is necessary sometimes to expose the error of a religion, and to say so, but that is not the same as making fun of it and its founder.
Jerry
garand_shooter
New member
Though you provide the stimulus, how I react to it is totally my choosing. There is no one responsible for my actions, other than myself.
fisherman66
New member
I disagree. Why would you accept responsibility for another person's actions?
Soloman Rushdie wrote a parody of the religion in the book The Satanic Verse. Are you suggesting that his death would "comes close" to what he deserves. Or is it because he knows he purposly "stirred the nest" with the book; and knew from the beginning they would call for his head on a platter? So pushing "buttons" in this case is criminal?
I agree, but stop short of saying it's criminal or "comes close" to warranting execution. In some rare cases I'd say it's even healthy.
Jerry M wrote in part:
Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."
----------------
Strikes me that if some people are so easily "offended" that they take to the streets, destroy property and place non-involved others at risk, seemingly at the drop of the proverbial hat, or turban, then perhaps they need to pull out that old mirror, and take a really close look at what they see looking back at themselves.
By the way, there are all manner of things that I might find "offensive". Most of them, I simply ignore, ala being approached by a small child, who in his or her childlike voice (squeaky), loudly announces that I'm ugly. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, but why would I want to dignify it by reacting to it?
Re things that really annoy me, I might try to do something about them, however "doing something about them" has yet to include either rioting or burning down buildings, nor has it led to my threatening others.
Finally, having likely been offended by one thing or another, I do not offhand recall members of other religious groups being driven to violence as some Muslims are. Given this, could you perhaps explain why it is that you stated the following, Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things,... Are Muslims so delicately balanced? A couple that I've worked with did not seem so. Also, what is it about Muslims in partricular that would or should cause others to "walk on egg shells" so to speak.
Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."
----------------
Strikes me that if some people are so easily "offended" that they take to the streets, destroy property and place non-involved others at risk, seemingly at the drop of the proverbial hat, or turban, then perhaps they need to pull out that old mirror, and take a really close look at what they see looking back at themselves.
By the way, there are all manner of things that I might find "offensive". Most of them, I simply ignore, ala being approached by a small child, who in his or her childlike voice (squeaky), loudly announces that I'm ugly. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, but why would I want to dignify it by reacting to it?
Re things that really annoy me, I might try to do something about them, however "doing something about them" has yet to include either rioting or burning down buildings, nor has it led to my threatening others.
Finally, having likely been offended by one thing or another, I do not offhand recall members of other religious groups being driven to violence as some Muslims are. Given this, could you perhaps explain why it is that you stated the following, Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things,... Are Muslims so delicately balanced? A couple that I've worked with did not seem so. Also, what is it about Muslims in partricular that would or should cause others to "walk on egg shells" so to speak.
Inciting a riot is a recognized crime at least in some places, although I cannot quote a specific law in a specific place.
I completely agree that each person is responsible for his actions and should suffer the consequences for them.
But, I can influence others, and if that influence causes harm, especially when it is predictable, then I have a degree of responsibility morally.
As the apostle Paul said, "If meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth."
If one of you did something such as the cartoonist, and people died as a result, would you feel proud that you had the freedom to have drawn it even if people were killed as a result? Would you not feel some degree of responsibility for what happened?
I guess we will just have to disagree on this issue. I have the freedom to do many things that are not good, and which could cause harm. If it is something that is not critical I prefer no to do it.
Jerry
I completely agree that each person is responsible for his actions and should suffer the consequences for them.
But, I can influence others, and if that influence causes harm, especially when it is predictable, then I have a degree of responsibility morally.
As the apostle Paul said, "If meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth."
If one of you did something such as the cartoonist, and people died as a result, would you feel proud that you had the freedom to have drawn it even if people were killed as a result? Would you not feel some degree of responsibility for what happened?
I guess we will just have to disagree on this issue. I have the freedom to do many things that are not good, and which could cause harm. If it is something that is not critical I prefer no to do it.
Jerry
invention_45
New member
JerryM/fisherman
Jerry seems to want to use indirect results of the spoken or written word to justify punish the speaker. We have laws to do exactly that. The crimes involved are slander, libel, and defamation. This gives the offended a way to fight back if he wants to WITHOUT resorting to rioting. In fact, the REASON the laws exist is to preserve public order and prevent rioting or other revenge against comments made.
So, the rioters COULD have taken the cartoonists to court either civilly or criminally. But I suspect that, since no actual damages could be shown, nobody had any standing to do that.
What this means is that this speech is properly protected. No actual person suffered an actual loss due to the cartoons. They were just mad.
When you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and the crowd stampedes, and somebody is injured, you cause a loss. This creates a person or persons having standing to take legal action.
See the difference?
The blame for the rioting falls completely upon the rioters and upon anyone who directly instructed them do to so.
Religious leaders would be out of jobs if faith were to falter. They cannot tolerate criticism of their faith that might just catch on. So they incite riots and blame hurricanes on homosexuals. And then they expect everybody to just forget they did it because it's in the name of that sacred cow, religion.
Free Speech:
*Peaceful protesting - no person suffers a loss.
*Public cursing that you overhear - no person suffers a loss.
*Pornography not involving minors - no person suffers a loss.
Perhaps Not Free Speech:
*Slander, Libel, Defamation - see your state statutes - somebody suffers a loss.
*Fire in a crowded theater - likely to cause somebody to suffer a loss.
*Fighting words - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Public cursing directed at somebody - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, blaming hurricanes on homosexuals - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, issuing a fatwa against somebody who drew a cartoon - lead to fights/riots, likely to cause a loss.
Jerry seems to want to use indirect results of the spoken or written word to justify punish the speaker. We have laws to do exactly that. The crimes involved are slander, libel, and defamation. This gives the offended a way to fight back if he wants to WITHOUT resorting to rioting. In fact, the REASON the laws exist is to preserve public order and prevent rioting or other revenge against comments made.
So, the rioters COULD have taken the cartoonists to court either civilly or criminally. But I suspect that, since no actual damages could be shown, nobody had any standing to do that.
What this means is that this speech is properly protected. No actual person suffered an actual loss due to the cartoons. They were just mad.
When you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and the crowd stampedes, and somebody is injured, you cause a loss. This creates a person or persons having standing to take legal action.
See the difference?
The blame for the rioting falls completely upon the rioters and upon anyone who directly instructed them do to so.
Religious leaders would be out of jobs if faith were to falter. They cannot tolerate criticism of their faith that might just catch on. So they incite riots and blame hurricanes on homosexuals. And then they expect everybody to just forget they did it because it's in the name of that sacred cow, religion.
Free Speech:
*Peaceful protesting - no person suffers a loss.
*Public cursing that you overhear - no person suffers a loss.
*Pornography not involving minors - no person suffers a loss.
Perhaps Not Free Speech:
*Slander, Libel, Defamation - see your state statutes - somebody suffers a loss.
*Fire in a crowded theater - likely to cause somebody to suffer a loss.
*Fighting words - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Public cursing directed at somebody - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, blaming hurricanes on homosexuals - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, issuing a fatwa against somebody who drew a cartoon - lead to fights/riots, likely to cause a loss.
fisherman66
New member
The long arm of our law is not quite that long.
The calling for our Danish cartoonist's "head on a platter" is within the law of a cleric run state. Within a religious "government" the arm of the law extends as far as the beliefs of the people.
When cultures collide...