[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

I didn't say violence is a form of free 'speech.' I said it was a form of expression. People express themselves differently. Sometimes words can kill before a sharp tool can do fatal damage.

Speech is protected, and that covers art. All forms of expression are obviously not protected by law. ALmost anything that anybody does is a form of expression. I'm talking about the USA here, but that basic principle applies to other western countries except the ones that have hypocritical anti hate speech laws

Words that can kill, as in someone inciting or ordering another person to commit murder or some other violent crime, are not protected in America. Words that hurt people's feelings are not prohibited in a free society (again the nazi laws are a glaring hypocricy here). Of course that goes both ways. Calling the artist a degenerate homosexual piece of garbage in public would be protected just like whatever insults he wants to level against our religion or some other religion.

Other societies can organize themselves differently, Bangladesh isnt in the West. If they want to ban all kinds of speech then thats their choice as a society. They should just do it with some semblence of justice (which is written into the law in most cases)

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

Speech is protected, and that covers art. All forms of expression are obviously not protected by law. ALmost anything that anybody does is a form of expression. I'm talking about the USA here, but that basic principle applies to other western countries except the ones that have hypocritical anti hate speech laws

Words that can kill, as in someone inciting or ordering another person to commit murder or some other violent crime, are not protected in America. Words that hurt people's feelings are not prohibited in a free society (again the nazi laws are a glaring hypocricy here). Of course that goes both ways. Calling the artist a degenerate homosexual piece of garbage in public would be protected just like whatever insults he wants to level against our religion or some other religion.

Other societies can organize themselves differently, Bangladesh isnt in the West. If they want to ban all kinds of speech then thats their choice as a society. They should just do it with some semblence of justice (which is written into the law in most cases)

How do you suggest attacking an artist who doesn't subscribe to any religion? If the artist believes in his/her art, then that's what the offended people will attack, right? Offending religion and its consequences can turn really bad. Not all people are tolerant. The artist who offended others' religion is intolerant in his/her way; and the person who chooses to retaliate is intolerant as well. Look at the case of Theo van Gogh.

Which reminds me .. Mohammed Bouyeri, who stabbed van Gogh, is serving a life sentence without parole, while the pig who raped and murdered Abeer Qassim and her entire family is serving a life sentence and is eligible for parole in 10 years! Amazing. What did the girl do to offend him? He wasn't even provoked by her or her family, el 7ayawan. If justice is to be served, then provocation should be taken into consideration. Some people just feel strongly about things, you know. Bouyeri was provoked and what he holds sacred was insulted. I'm not justifying the murder, but he should be treated like someone who was provoked.

Provocation in English Law

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

How do you suggest attacking an artist who doesn't subscribe to any religion? If the artist believes in his/her art, then that's what the offended people will attack, right?

Well, you kind of said it. If one really feels the need to attack someone who attacked their beliefs with a piece of art, then they could attack whatever that person believes in. If the person believes in nothing, then non-belief itself is a belief that can be insulted. And if the person believes in themselves and their art then that can be the focus- attack the person's character, morality, looks, whatever. Attack the quality of their art, insult them in whatever way. ***-for-tat stuff like this is childish, but sometimes it is necessary to shut people up. But when I say "attack" their art, its obviously illegal to actually go to the museum and rip it up or to shoot or stab the artist. Likewise, if an artist hates Islam he cant go to a masjid and throw pig blood at the door like the bigots in America have done. That isnt artistic expression, its vandalism and intimidation. If he goes and buys a canvas and paints a mosque on it then throws pig blood on his painting, then you have a piece of art that is offensive and intolerant and hateful towards muslims.

You seem to be advocating that nothing that insults religions be allowed. But that closes the door on a whole sector of public discourse, because anything that anybody says about a religion can be taken as offensive. Including stuff that is true. I'll give you an example. The guys who make South Park had several episodes that dealt with religion specifically. One of them was about Mormonism, and another two were about Scientology. Both of these are recognized as legitimate religions here. Now, in the Mormonism episode they basically described the religion as a fraud that was cooked up by some sloppy plagiarist who was caught in his lies several times. This is true, thats really how mormonism was founded. Beyond this (and not shown in the episode), the religion was propagated by men who were racists, killers, and sexual perverts. So many insane cults have split off of the Church of Latter Day Saints.. its really a very strange religion. I consider all of this to be true, and I dont think theres anything wrong with someone saying it. But to an LDS believer, this is extremely offensive, and I can understand that. These are beliefs they hold dear, they dont like seeing their heroes and prophets described as insane plagiarists and murderous cult-leading rapists. But thats not my problem, I've read about their church and I came to my conclusions. And the guys who produce south park seem to have come to similar conclusions and that made its way onto their show. Theres nothing wrong with showing that. Theres no reason that the religious sentimentality of mormons should be the guilding principle of any discussion about their religion

When it comes to the scientology episodes its more of the same. That religion is basically a money-grubbing cult and a scam to steal the money of their members. The entire structure and rituals of the religion are designed as a pyramid scheme to get the money of the poor lower members into the hands of the top leadership. Its a messed up group that is run like a mafia, and all of this is documented. And the South Park people again just described their view of the religion, which wasnt far from the truth. Again, to a scientologist this could be very offensive, but we need to have an honest discussion about scientology, not a love fest where all anyone can ever say is supportive and friendly things about what they believe. Thats no way to discuss something.

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Offending religion and its consequences can turn really bad. Not all people are tolerant. The artist who offended others' religion is intolerant in his/her way; and the person who chooses to retaliate is intolerant as well. Look at the case of Theo van Gogh.

True, and people who harm others because they were offended (or who harm others because they hate them for their beliefs) should be punished by the law. Stopping discussion about subjects because it could cause conflicts isnt the answer

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Which reminds me .. Mohammed Bouyeri, who stabbed van Gogh, is serving a life sentence without parole, while the pig who raped and murdered Abeer Qassim and her entire family is serving a life sentence and is eligible for parole in 10 years! Amazing. What did the girl do to offend him? He wasn't even provoked by her or her family, el 7ayawan. If justice is to be served, then provocation should be taken into consideration. Some people just feel strongly about things, you know. Bouyeri was provoked and what he holds sacred was insulted. I'm not justifying the murder, but he should be treated like someone who was provoked.

Provocation in English Law

You're bringing up an unrelated issue. Obviously getting a chance for parole after a conviction of premeditated rape and multiple premeditated murders is a light sentence. Its scandalous in a way.

Also I dont think the scenario you described fits the definition of provokation that you provided. I also dont think somebody could be so offended by a movie that they are driven into an uncontrollable rage that results in murder. Long before they reach that point they should have pressed stop, then eject, then returned the movie to Blockbuster, or turned the TV off, or closed the book, or whatever. Theres much more to it than simply being offended. There are other motivations involved in stuff like the murder of Van Gogh.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

You seem to be advocating that nothing that insults religions be allowed. But that closes the door on a whole sector of public discourse, because anything that anybody says about a religion can be taken as offensive. Including stuff that is true.

I'll use the example of the Danish cartoons. If they were realistic, I don't think people would have been very offended. They were provocative. They could have easily caused backlash against Muslims, because according to the cartoonists, violence in Islam originated with its founder, who was the angry looking Arab, with a bomb nested in his turban.

Worth mentioning is the fact that the same newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet refused to publish an Iranian cartoonist's work related to holocaust denial. So even if these countries pretend to support freedom of expression, the medium through which that can be achieved is not easily accessible to everyone.

You're bringing up an unrelated issue. Obviously getting a chance for parole after a conviction of premeditated rape and multiple premeditated murders is a light sentence. Its scandalous in a way.

Also I dont think the scenario you described fits the definition of provokation that you provided. I also dont think somebody could be so offended by a movie that they are driven into an uncontrollable rage that results in murder. Long before they reach that point they should have pressed stop, then eject, then returned the movie to Blockbuster, or turned the TV off, or closed the book, or whatever. Theres much more to it than simply being offended. There are other motivations involved in stuff like the murder of Van Gogh.

Not entirely irrelevant. Provocation is an important factor. You and I may not react the same way to the same stimuli, so why do you expect others to react in what you consider to be the rational way? Rationality is a very subjective word, 3ala fekra.

A football match can result in so much violence. Personally, I find that stupid, and those who beat up other fans are just so dumb and deserve to be flogged a 100 times. For football fans, it's a different story. Just a random example.

There's already so much violence and hate in this world. The last thing we need is 'art' acting as a catalyst in this formula!

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

I'll use the example of the Danish cartoons. If they were realistic, I don't think people would have been very offended. They were provocative. They could have easily caused backlash against Muslims, because according to the cartoonists, violence in Islam originated with its founder, who was the angry looking Arab, with a bomb nested in his turban.

I don't think they were that bad. They'd been published for months and very few muslims had been bothered about it. It was only when a cadre of "Danish" imams had collected the cartoons and (added their own more offensive ones) and went around the world on a global "jihad" to incite outrage and hatred against the country that probably accepted them as refugees that the cartoons became an issue.

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Worth mentioning is the fact that the same newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet refused to publish an Iranian cartoonist's work related to holocaust denial. So even if these countries pretend to support freedom of expression, the medium through which that can be achieved is not easily accessible to everyone.

That was because the newspaper's editor was a zionist Jew, Flemming Rose. Jews attacking any race or religion is fair game, but when the boot is on the other foot they need to be protected as victims of "anti-semitism"

There's already so much violence and hate in this world.

Wrong. Violence and hate are the apogee of human civilisation and ought to be celebrated in all their forms.

[Arabesque]

Lol, Aryan, you never fail to make me laugh

[Timbit]

What does that mean, should art respect religion? Should artists respect religion? Not all people respect all religions and some people respect none. Some of these people are artists, so how can you stop them from expressing themselves through their art?

Ban it from being displayed? In a theistic state, sure, you can.

You can't ever stop people from writing it though or drawing it or whatnot. And you can shelter your theistic nation, but not really, because the rest of the world doesn't subsrcribe to your views. You're always going to get people like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen. And honestly, the Muslim reaction to people like this has been really, really stupid. Calls for their deaths? Yeah, you're really going to stop people from saying anything bad about Islam when you act violent and perpetuate those very same stereotypes.

And let's not forget that there is much art that is religious in nature and a lot of is beautiful and interesting.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Following on that, the cartoonists may have been exercising their right to freedom of expression, but they only demonstrated intolerance and hatefulness through that. Does freedom of expression accommodate intolerance and bigotry?

Since we'll never agree on limits and where to draw the line, I think it is best that art stays away from religion.

Again, it's a personal opinion.

I haven't seen the cartoons. Even so, I think if I were Muslim I would see this as the artist's problem, not mine. People have tried to provoke me before by insulting my culture and beliefs. It made me feel sick to my stomach - for them not for me, that someone would stoop so low.

In a more general sense, you mention that art should stay away from religion. What if it's religion that comes knocking on the art's door? In ancient Greece and sometimes Rome, nudity depicted in sculpture was not considered shameful. There was no negative or immodest connotation associated with it whatsoever. Later, medieval Christianity made it its business to put an end to that art, and a lot of it was destroyed. Islam takes it's prohibitions on art to higher levels (although I must say I'm glad that early Muslims didn't take it upon themselves to destroy the monumental artwork in the territories they conquered, despite their religious sensitivities to it)

I have to say that I'm glad I live in a place where artists and religious folks are free to express themselves openly, even if they are at odds with each other. As long as they aren't forcing the other to see it at every turn, I think it's a pretty good deal.

[Blue_Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Following on that, the cartoonists may have been exercising their right to freedom of expression, but they only demonstrated intolerance and hatefulness through that. Does freedom of expression accommodate intolerance and bigotry?

Yes! Yes, it does! Freedom of expression is nothing less than the right to be arrogant, disrespectful, or even bigoted. If it isn't that, freedom of expression is nothing at all. You can think all you want about being violent and talk all you want about it; freedom of expression allows you to do all those things. It's in committing the acts when it becomes a problem. You want to fantasize about beating your boss with a baseball bat, fine, but you bring that bat into the office, and I'm calling the cops.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Variable

I haven't seen the cartoons. Even so, I think if I were Muslim I would see this as the artist's problem, not mine. People have tried to provoke me before by insulting my culture and beliefs. It made me feel sick to my stomach - for them not for me, that someone would stoop so low.

In a more general sense, you mention that art should stay away from religion. What if it's religion that comes knocking on the art's door? In ancient Greece and sometimes Rome, nudity depicted in sculpture was not considered shameful. There was no negative or immodest connotation associated with it whatsoever. Later, medieval Christianity made it its business to put an end to that art, and a lot of it was destroyed. Islam takes it's prohibitions on art to higher levels (although I must say I'm glad that early Muslims didn't take it upon themselves to destroy the monumental artwork in the territories they conquered, despite their religious sensitivities to it)

I have to say that I'm glad I live in a place where artists and religious folks are free to express themselves openly, even if they are at odds with each other. As long as they aren't forcing the other to see it at every turn, I think it's a pretty good deal.

See, nude sculptures are not appreciated in Islamic culture. Sculptures are not appreciated, let alone nude ones! But the majority will reluctantly accept it as long as it's not specifically made to insult Muslims. If it deliberately targets Muslims, like the cartoons, then the backlash is justified in my opinion.

Like I said, we all react differently to different things. To you, it may be "stooping low", to others, it's just a form of expression. You can't really restrict the definition to mean what you want it to mean. If art is a form of expression, so is violence. It just happens that one can trigger the other, and the latter can inspire the former.

We don't live in ancient Greece anymore, and ancient Greece does not rule the world. Though many like to think the US rules the world, that's demonstrably false, and because of that, you'll have civilisations clashing. To co-exist in harmony means all parties should make an effort. If you (not you personally) insult me and say that you have the right to do so, because your culture protects your freedom to express insults using different euphemisms, then I have news for you. My culture has a different definition for 'insult', and I might want to express it freely as well. And if we're all citizens of country that has many sub-cultures, who gets to make the decision on what's appropriate and what's not? Not the Jews, I hope? (j/k)

[GOTFIVEONIT]

mossad can talk all he wants about 'free societies' however a case has been booked against taslima for hurting the religious sentiments of Muslims, in India. Thats the law there. after all in europe, its illegal to deny the holoucoust or even praise the nazis.

[GOTFIVEONIT]

if your argument is solely free speech, then we have the right to protest what they right, even burn books.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

I'll use the example of the Danish cartoons. If they were realistic, I don't think people would have been very offended. They were provocative. They could have easily caused backlash against Muslims, because according to the cartoonists, violence in Islam originated with its founder, who was the angry looking Arab, with a bomb nested in his turban.

Worth mentioning is the fact that the same newspaper that published the cartoons of the Prophet refused to publish an Iranian cartoonist's work related to holocaust denial. So even if these countries pretend to support freedom of expression, the medium through which that can be achieved is not easily accessible to everyone.


Not entirely irrelevant. Provocation is an important factor. You and I may not react the same way to the same stimuli, so why do you expect others to react in what you consider to be the rational way? Rationality is a very subjective word, 3ala fekra.

A football match can result in so much violence. Personally, I find that stupid, and those who beat up other fans are just so dumb and deserve to be flogged a 100 times. For football fans, it's a different story. Just a random example.

There's already so much violence and hate in this world. The last thing we need is 'art' acting as a catalyst in this formula!

WORD.

It seems that for Muslims rape and murder are taboo subjects whilst for non-muslim americans the taboo is a limited right to offend