South Park tonight 10PM EDT may show cartoon of Muhammad

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The fact that Comedy Central (like everyone else) knows that those cartoons (in one form or another) were used to incite massive violent protests raises an ethical issue that arguably justifies the censorship.

you probably loved Chamberlain then.. eh Fishy?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact that Comedy Central (like everyone else) knows that those cartoons (in one form or another) were used to incite massive violent protests raises an ethical issue that arguably justifies the censorship.

That argument reeks of appeasement.

You refuse to break their taboos because you're scared of what they might do.

Talk about perpetuating stereotypes, what kind of stereotype does appeasing them perpetuate? It perpetuates the stereotype of the scary, crazy Mussalman.

I think its a bit more complex than that. Knowing as we all do that these cartoons have been used to incite rioting and violence, what would be gained from republishing them (in some form) as part of a mainstream comedy show?

Freedom of speech is an absolute right - granted. You can say or write whatever you like, however heinous or evil it might be. That right however does not absolve you from being held legally responsible for what you say. We have laws that govern libel, slander, defamation of character, incitement to religious and racial hatred - legislation that does not (in and of itself) prevent anyone from saying or writing what they want to say.

If I remove a "bridge out" sign from a road, knowing full well that it would cause an accident, and a bunch of people drive of the cliff, do you honestly think the authorities would not hold me to account for it? Please.

Edited April 13, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If I remove a "bridge out" sign from a road, knowing full well that it would cause an accident, and a bunch of people drive of the cliff, do you honestly think the authorities would not hold me to account for it? Please.

Apples and oranges, my appeasenik friend.

Removing a "bridge out" sign could have the direct effect of causing loss of life.

Mocking Mohammad does not have such a direct effect. It's just ink on paper (or pixels on a screen).

If the Christian Right starts bombing every abortion clinic in the US, will you support a voluntary moratorium on abortions? After all, the taking of life (which they believe begins at conception) is just as taboo for them as a depiction of Mohammad is for Muslims.

You'd never give in to Christian nutters, why give in to Muslim ones? What the hell are you appeaseniks so afraid of?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

South Park, CO will burn.

Nah, no fires on this one. The morons would just run around like crazy trying to find Southpark, Co's embassy taking a few comics hostage on their way...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I remove a "bridge out" sign from a road, knowing full well that it would cause an accident, and a bunch of people drive of the cliff, do you honestly think the authorities would not hold me to account for it? Please.

Apples and oranges, my appeasenik friend.

Removing a "bridge out" sign could have the direct effect of causing loss of life.

Mocking Mohammad does not have such a direct effect. It's just ink on paper (or pixels on a screen).

If the Christian Right starts bombing every abortion clinic in the US, will you support a voluntary moratorium on abortions? After all, the taking of life (which they believe begins at conception) is just as taboo for them as a depiction of Mohammad is for Muslims.

You'd never give in to Christian nutters, why give in to Muslim ones? What the hell are you appeaseniks so afraid of?

As I said, we have laws that hold people to account for what they say, but do not limit their right to say what they want. What might be Pixels on screen, or ink on a page cannot be separated from the actions they cause.

If you publish something knowing full well that it will cause offence and violence (as it did previously), you should be held legally accountable for inciting it. I don't think that's hard to understand, or particularly unreasonable. No text is value free, to deny that is conservatively naive IMO.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If the Christian Right starts bombing every abortion clinic in the US, will you support a voluntary moratorium on abortions?

PWNED!

If you publish something knowing full well that it will cause offence and violence (as it did previously), you should be held legally accountable for inciting it. I don't think that's hard to understand, or particularly unreasonable.

So, how about that clinic performing abortions knowing good and well that some fanatics may use that as justfication to incite violence? Would you have them stop performing abortions to appease the potentially criminal fanatics? How about that?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, how about that clinic performing abortions knowing good and well that some fanatics may use that as justfication to incite violence? Would you have them stop performing abortions to appease the potentially criminal fanatics? How about that?

That's hardly a freedom of speech issue. The right to perform an abortion is decided by law - the same laws that (in most countries) would hold violent fanatics to account for their actions.

The right to free speech is a constitutional one, that's separate to the laws which are in place to prevent libel, slander, defamation, incitement to religious hatred - as I mentioned previously these laws do not prevent free speech but they do govern accountability for what you say.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So, how about that clinic performing abortions knowing good and well that some fanatics may use that as justfication to incite violence? Would you have them stop performing abortions to appease the potentially criminal fanatics? How about that?

That's hardly a freedom of speech issue. The right to perform an abortion is decided by law - the same laws that (in most countries) would hold violent fanatics to account for their actions.

The right to free speech is a constitutional one, that's separate to the laws which are in place to prevent libel, slander, defamation, incitement to religious hatred - as I mentioned previously these laws do not prevent free speech but they do govern accountability for what you say.

That was really lame there, dude. What court, where has ever decided that depictions of the prophet are illegal? None that I am aware of. Thus, the depictions are legal. Just as legal as abortions in this part of the world. And anyone who opposes either ought to take their grievance to a court of law or lobby the legislature to change the law to accomodate their wishes i/o taking people hostage, killing people, bombing or burning buildings whether or not they are occupied. To hold those accountable that are not the least engaged in any criminal activity and be the apologist for those that clearly are is rather questionable.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What court, where has ever decided that depictions of the prophet are illegal?

The Sharia courts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What court, where has ever decided that depictions of the prophet are illegal?

The Sharia courts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

They air Southpark in the Saudi Kingdom? Really? Wow, I'm impressed.

Seriously, though, what that court ruled has no bearing on our land, does it?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Seriously, though, what that court ruled has no bearing on our land, does it?

No, not yet. But we appease them enough and one day.. you never know.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seriously, though, what that court ruled has no bearing on our land, does it?

No, not yet. But we appease them enough and one day.. you never know.

That's true. Which is why I am very opposed to appeasing those that have no respect for the law and/or life and/or all those other things we hold dear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Seriously, though, what that court ruled has no bearing on our land, does it?

No, not yet. But we appease them enough and one day.. you never know.

That's true. Which is why I am very opposed to appeasing those that have no respect for the law and/or life and/or all those other things we hold dear.

Ultimately it depends on what values you choose to stand behind. Those cartoons don't speak for me - I don't believe they add anything but fuel racist misconceptions of the entire muslim world. It perpetuates similar misconceptions in the muslim world that the US and Europe are broadly 'anti-muslim'.

We're our own worst enemy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Seriously, though, what that court ruled has no bearing on our land, does it?

No, not yet. But we appease them enough and one day.. you never know.

That's true. Which is why I am very opposed to appeasing those that have no respect for the law and/or life and/or all those other things we hold dear.

Ultimately it depends on what values you choose to stand behind. Those cartoons don't speak for me - I don't believe they add anything but fuel racist misconceptions of the entire muslim world. It perpetuates similar misconceptions in the muslim world that the US and Europe are broadly 'anti-muslim'.

We're our own worst enemy.

I stand behind the value to see a cartoon for what it is: a cartoon. I choose not to stand behind setting buildings ablaze or killing people because some news media chooses to print a cartoon. And I choose not to stand behind those that try way too hard to make up apologies for criminal and fanatical elements.

Violence is our worst enemy.

Edited April 14, 2006 by ET-US2004

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

We're our own worst enemy.

Violence is our worst enemy.

Gee, and here I thought the worst enemy award was reserved for either Walmart or Global Warming.