Draw Muhammad contest Taxas!!! WHY?? - Page 8

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

There is this local newspaper in bay area, CA, which has an online edition. On this topic, since yesterday, I have been fighting with at least 20 Americans who have ganged up on me (I use a different ID there, by the way :) I do have some (sane) supporters too, not that I need any :))

Anyway, I have been arguing that these contests are incitement to violence. Free speech has limitations.Most guys on that website supporting the contest were/are citing their favorite first amendment (it's not like these guys are articulate or well read; they just parrot one another and keep repeating "free speech" and "constitution" a million times)

That Pamela Geller, organizer of the event, is a known hate-mongerer.

These same people would cry blood if someone were to mock Jews. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I don't see any purpose to offending a religious group deliberately. Yes, picking up guns and start shooting at people just because someone offended you is extreme, not to mention reinforces stereotypes, but why draw first blood? Why taunt? Why provoke and risk peace? Why purposefully disrespect? If they really want to have a debate, an open talk with followers of Islam, they should do so in a more civilized way. What they did (and are doing) is blatantly inflammatory.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

[

Freedom of speech is impotent without the freedom to provoke (with the exception of explicitly inciting violence). By your argument, we should ban all kinds of spoofing and lampooning of "sensitive" and "Holy Cow" subjects. Gradually on, that'd ultimately ring the death-knell of that idiotic thingy called Democracy.

Not to forget a repeat of the cliched question: Who sets the limits as to what is "offensive enough"?

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

I see your point, Mr. K. The Texas contest definitely qualifies as a form of hate speech when viewed through the lens of the U.S. legal definition. But under a more generic, dictionary definition of the term, hate speech means speech intended to defame or incite violence against a particular religious/ethnic group.
Mockery/parody of religion/religious practises does not come within the gambit of "hate speech" as per this definition.

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

I your point, Mr. K. The Texas contest finitely qualifies as a form of hate speech when viewed through the lens of the U.S. legal definition. But under a more generic, dictionary definition of the term, hate speech means speech intended to defame or incite violence against a particular religious/ethnic group.
Mockery/parody of religion/religious practises does not come within the gambit of "hate speech" as per this definition.

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

To quote verbatim the definition in the link, Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

Originally posted by: Rehanism

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This is the key factor that sets hate speech apart from free speech. The target is a group of people. Any speech that incites violence or hatred against a group of people is rightly hate speech. Calling for attacks or excommunication of Muslims would rightly be hate speech. But ideas, ideologies and symbols are not living beings. They do not deserve the immunity from assault that human beings do. Therefore denigration of beliefs or symbols can't be hate speech regardless of how crude they are. Offense is subjective. But laws should be uniform.

I am deeply offended by the Islamic position regarding non-believers. The Quran is outright abusive and spiteful against the non-believers; its full of graphic details of torture that awaits the non-believers and I am offended by the thought that millions of children around the world are subjected to such bigoted and scary ideas. The Christian belief that every child is a sinner by birth and deserves to suffer in hell for eternity unless he accepts Jesus is another offensive belief to me. But I still think Muslims and Christians should be free to have such twisted and morally abhorrent beliefs and preach them as well.

If we are really sincere about banning hate speech, I am afraid the first victims would be these 'Holy' books.</font>