Badmovies.org Forum

I try to update my author blog once a week or so with my thoughts on . . . well, pretty much everything.  This week I am focused on recent events here in North Texas - the attempted terrorist attack at a "free speech" event.  But was it "free speech" or "hate speech"?  And should it matter?  This one struck close to home, and you can read my thoughts here:

http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com (http://lewisliterarylair.blogspot.com)

We recently had a politician here talking about free speech and discrimination here.


Kind of eye rolling really.

Hate speech and free speech are separate things but one really must have a think for a second: Just because you can have free speech doesn't mean people won't think you're an ass/listen to your speech so maybe not being bigoted should be a part of the thinking here.

But really there are two aspects to this specific incident:

1. Extremist Fundamentalist Muslims believe that depicting the prophet is an incredibly high crime so it's no surprise that these incidents incite some to action.

2. Geert Wilders is a pretty outspoken guy who has basically made his career out of being a racist instigator. He has so many targets on his back and this particular event was clearly designed to provoke an antagonistic response so is anyone really surprised this would happen at some point? It really seemed like an event made to bait an attack like this.


Again, nobody should be shot or killed over something so realistically harmless, but knowing the above really it's both parties being idiots and really I support none of the people in this.

That's a valid point. 
But idiots should have a right to be idiots without being shot for it.
Thanks for taking the time to read, though!

I wonder what these stupid buggers who tried to kill the guests there would do to me if they knew I had a DVD copy of Mohammed: Messenger of God / The Message at home.  :buggedout:

(http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article8537565.ece/alternates/w620/mohamedbiopic-rex.jpg)

Gotta give respect to the attempted murderers in Texas. They were doing exactly what their holy book tells them to do.

Strange how "p**s Christ" didn't result in Christians killing artists. Or how no FOX execs died from Hindu violence when The Simpsons had Homer dress up as Ganesh. Or that a militant Chasid didn't assassinate Jay Leno when he played Moses in a skit. Or how enraged Buddhists didn't burn down movie studios when Keanu Reeves played Buddha.

Yes, very strange.

Wholeheartedly disagree with that statement. 

This is why liberty is messy. So many want their own personal liberty but want also to define the "allowed" liberties others have.

Well I guess it's in the definitions. I suppose I was referring to our Australian laws in which 'hate speech' the crime has been discussed recently so the phrase has been on my mind...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Australia)

Personally I put a difference on hate speech and free speech based on a simple thing: you can say whatever you want but don't be an absolute raving jerk about it. Our laws probably swing too far at the moment, but I think on the face of it the concept of 'don't be an offensive ass' is solid. Really these days I think a few more people need a metaphorical clip over the ears so they know the difference between a self interested 'do what you want attitude' and maybe consider what other people's feelings are a bit more. Society seems to be a bit too vain and selfish sometimes.



Oh definitely, idiots shouldn't be shot at, especially by other idiots who have been brainwashed into believing a perverted, corrupted version of a religion [and I don't think I was implying otherwise?] but lets be real: the organisers kind of knew they would provoke that reaction eventually. Why else does Wilders travel around with a small army protecting him?

I have to say though, knowing Geert Wilders' ideology, I wouldn't be too upset if someone also gave him a solid kick up the backside... He really gets on my nerves... I know I know violence bad, but I'd smile a little all the same.

It's curious to me why non Muslims take the depiction of Muhammed as a serious thing they should be sensitive too. Should we not eat beef because Hindus don't? Jewish people don't write God they write G_d should I do that too? It makes no sense to me

if you tell someone they can't do something for no good reason the OBVIOUS impulse is going to be to do it. I really don't know why a Muslim or person of any religion who can't understand that would choose to move to a western country. go back to Dagestan or one of those places that caters to your thinking.

This only outlines a specific example of the difference in viewpoint regarding the proper role of government in the debate "subjects vs sovereign individuals."

As I recall, Orwell had a few things to say about the concept of 'regulating' the words that come out of people's mouths.

I think in the USA we're used to making strong statements without having to deal with strong reactions. I mean, to me, this is really where the rubber meets the road. You really got to have enough balls to tell/show the other side to go f**k themselves.

Thanks for a thoughtful approach to a messy subject.  I enjoyed reading it.

 My views are basically irrelevant as I feel all parties were at fault: one a fault of respect and manners and the other a much larger criminal fault.   No one should be shot, but I feel the organizers of the event were baiting and just happened to catch a bigger thing then they expected. And Tragedy resulted.   
The power of this country is basically (I hope) to just let people exist.  But even that is draining away.
Whem you have people stirring up trouble to make a point about another group being "less civilized" then they are not really morally superior.
Jerks, the lot of them
-Ed 

I couldn't agree more: live and let live. But when in all of history has appeasement of evil ever worked? How can you peacefully co-exist with a force whose most central tenet is to convert all others to one way of life, and failing that, to destroy them? The people who met to exercise free expression (in a closed, non-public environment, by the way) did nothing illegal and arguably not even anything rude. To blame them for the reaction of attempted mass murderers is like blaming rape on how a woman dresses. (Oh, wait, Islam does that too.)


I have to go with lester on this, if a way of life is so hateful to a person, that person should consider moving to where others share the same beliefs. Or failing that, discover the fine art of tolerance.

I really dislike ritualistic/ superstitious aspects of religion and dislike them even moreso when I am expected to go along with them.

What is the point of the prohibition against drawing Muhammed? What is anyone harming by arranged lines of a pen in such a way that it forms that image? what does it take from humanity?

Free speech is a very messy topic. I will always err on the side of allowing as near to total freedom of expression as is practicable. As the saying goes, "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." One of the biggest problems I see is that people confuse the freedom to express themselves with the freedom from consequences of that expression. If I may use indy in my example since he started all this hoopla, I am free to insult him, his family,  his religion, his ancestry, etc. He would likely turn the other cheek for awhile. Eventually, however, either I would find the one thing he will not allow to be abused (in his case, I would imagine it would be something to do with his family), or else just through sheer repetition I would wear him down to the point he would retaliate, perhaps verbally or perhaps with a well-deserved punch in the nose (which I could prosecute him for, however justified he might have been). Has he curtailed my right of free speech by stopping my abuse? No, but he has just as much right to express himself as I do. I may have been a total jackass, but unless I was making palpable threats, I was acting within my rights. He would also be acting within his rights to return my insults or possibly to sue me for slander.The only thing he would not have the right to do, and I wouldn't either, would be to escalate our feud to violence. It's messy, but it is also necessary in a free society for its citizens to be able to express whatever whackjob thing comes into their tiny little minds, as long as that thing is not a threat or in some way puts people in immediate danger. Anything less than this is not a truly free society.

And something I have noted - no critic of Christianity is asked to exercise the same level of self-restraint that Islam's critics are all but commanded to observe.  Artists can trash my faith in the most vile and scatological way, collecting government grants to do it, and I am expected to turn the other cheek. Gay activists can enter a Cathedral and defile the Eucharist with used condoms, and they are heralded as champions of sexual freedom.   But let someone hold a contest to draw Muhammad at a secular facility miles from the nearest mosque, and suddenly MSN has headlines: "Should there be limits on free speech?"

I would tip my hat to the tens of thousands of Muslims in the DFW area who gave this event the absolute lack of notice that it merited. It's a shame that the two jihadists from out West were not so wise.

Well said.

I'm reminded of a thought provoking video we watched in (I believe) 8th grade history when discussing the topic of freedoms.  It showed new-age Nazi setting up shop in front of a Jewish Temple to pass out pamphlets and to "Street Preach" to passerby.

The gist was someone "shut him down" by force.  Then the movie ended.  The point was for us to hold a mock trial about that person's assault (or attempted murder, or whatever).  Was the Jewish - Nazi connection sufficient to justify the assault? Was the Nazi JUST exercising free speech, even though he went out of his way to choose that location, possibly to provoke an attack?  It was open ended on purpose, and the teacher pushed us really hard to explore many of the angles.

There is no easy answer other than an absolutist approach...freedom, even when it is messy or painful, rules.  If the government tries to step in with new laws that seek to prohibit anti-Muslim art, it is a clear violation of "Congress Shall Pass No Law" as far as I can see it.

The First Amendment does not have a "unless someone's feelings get hurt" clause.

The underlying moral of this story is, Texans are good shots. Terrorists beware.  :cheers:

Yeah it kind of shows the limits of the whole homegrown jihadi thing. In the 90's they would train in Afghanistan and whatnot. These guys just walked in the front door with no plan and no aim.

Some people were calling the event a honeypot for terrorists, which is crass but kind of true.

I also support Derf's statement on free speech.

You know what amazes me - these two thugs had body armor and automatic weapons.
The cop took them both down with a 9mm handgun before they could kill anyone.

Salute!

Exactly, the cops were pros

I thought it was interesting that this comic appeared this week. It seems very relevant to this thread.

(http://i329.photobucket.com/albums/l367/Derf64/Pibgorn5-14_1.jpg) (http://s329.photobucket.com/user/Derf64/media/Pibgorn5-14_1.jpg.html)

Amen-Though the whole idea of-"dont draw pictures of my God" is infantile-and morons who do it for the sole reason that they are racist backwoods hillbilly sister f**kers-ahhh...I aint even gonna go on...pfft! :lookingup:

Head shots, anyone?

I could be wrong here, but its my understanding that its only some Islamic sects that have an issue with images of Mohammad. As for free speach, I remember growning up hearing a lot of people saying "Its your right to say what you want, and I'll defend that to the death, but its my right to punch you in the mouth for saying it too!"

While I feel equal rights and political correctness have done a lot of good I also feel in a lot of ways its went way too far and part of me misses the old days. Its damn hard to strike a balance between whats excessive though and whats acceptable. Towards the end of my time in training all of us were lined up on parade and told that a civilian librarian employed on the base had went to the boss with a list of what she considered to be intimidating behaviour by trainees. We were warned that anyone caught carrying out any of the following activities would be charged.

1) Rough housing in the car park. Ok, this one I can understand. It was winter so got dark early and a woman walking alone through a car park could get scared by lads carrying on.
2) Bad language. Personally I generally try not to swear (doesn't always work), but come on bear in mind the environment you chose to work in. Harsh language is the least of your worries.
3) Carrying bags in an aggresive manner. This immediently brought a mental image of people fixing bayonets to kit bags and charging. I haven't been able to figure out quite what she meant by that and the disip giving us the brief couldn't tell us what it was either. But he did make sure we knew we'd be punished for doing what ever it was.

The prohibition on depictions of Muhammad holds true for all Muslims, so far as I know.

Most of what we see of Islamic art is geometric designs.  Depictions of humans in Islamic art are uncommon, largely historical (as in: of older vintage) and generally limited to smaller, 'private' works.  Apparently portraits of Muhammad do exist, historically.  Though it has been argued that none can be considered accurate.

Depictions of people in 'religious' art are prohibited by Sharia Law as idolatry.  One might assume any portrait of Muhammad would be considered 'religious' simply by virtue of its subject matter.

Of course, not all Muslims follow Sharia Law.  But maybe there is some consideration given to sparing others' delicate sensibilities. 

I used to post at a Shia Muslim forum when I was learning about foreign policy. I met some cool people, but in general it's a strange religion by western standards, kind of more like a cult. They're paralyzed with fear about every little thing. They have a Jehovah's witness type attitude towards music like it's evil. They mostly watch Disney movies. They're constantly besieging these Imams in Iran and Iraq with dopey questions about can I do this can I do that. Is wearing cologne haram?

The few Sunnis who showed up there were pretty rude and it's clear they really dislike Shias. The Shias would prefer to get along with the Sunnis and they support them politically in regards to Palestine, hating the US etc. I talked to one Sunni who it seemed like he had dedicated his entire life to just hating Shias and I really can't understand why.

The Shias are kind of ironically much more forthright in their opposition to US and so forth. You never see Iran or hezbollah making deals with Israel or going to these resorts like the Saudi princes and so forth do.

They also all indulge in conspiracy theories though. I would guess most Muslims don't believe the Holocaust happened or that 9/11 was the work of Al Queda.