BklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:
DarthMarley, on 17 September 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:
BklnScott, on 17 September 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:
Do you really think that this "movie" made by a criminal and a softcore porn director (and starring at least two porn stars) constitutes an insult against Islam that is "quite understandable?" Really? I'm not a fan of religion, generally speaking, but I think it's reasonable to call this gratuitous. Or is it just that all insults against Islam are understandable?
I'm not a fan of religion, but this "movie" was made with the EXPRESSED intent of fomenting violence. I'd love to think we could all get together and condemn it on that basis alone.
Dev -- Interesting article. I suspected that there must be a disconnect for people in societies that do not have a freedom of speech tradition. Of course, they would assume that all Hollywood movies must pass through the office of a government censor, and that the existence of any given movie is proof that the government stamped a seal of approval on it.
Why should it matter who made the video or why?
Motive always matters. Context always matters. Nothing happens in a vacuum. A criminal who hates Muslims partners with a porn director to make a "movie" that he hopes will instigate violence and blood shed. And indeed, it does. You think that's irrelevant to the story? On the contrary, it's a material detail without which you would think this is another Salman Rushdie or Theo van Gogh situation -- but it's not. Not even close.
The victim is not the offended Muslims.
No one said otherwise.
Nor is the victim the filmmaker. Though there is an odd push to "investigate" him.
He's a criminal who is on probation following his release from prison. Because of the nature of his crimes (bank fraud), he has limitations placed on his usage of computers, and is prohibited from using the internet. If he violated the terms of his probation in the making and distribution of this "film," he should have to answer for that -- and indeed, he should probably have to go back to prison.
Why is that odd?
At stake in this is the ability to criticize under threat of violence.
No, it really isn't. The First Amendment is alive an well.
What makes it different than Rushdie or van Gogh?
Do we know the intent of Theo Van Gogh? We do have his words, and quoting them would violate board policy. Does a motive to provoke Muslims matter in terms of tolerating Muslim outrage?
Does the "context" of the body count matter?
I agree that context matters, which is why I mention Van Gogh and Rushdie.
I get that a parole violation likely occured.
Why law enforcement resources are spent identifying him is politically suspect to me.
Call it yet another appeasement move that projects weakness.
If the projection of weakness were to have an identifiable body count, would that be persuasive? Or would some other rationalization for appeasment present itself?
Let us compare the production of this video with the SPLC's labelling of a conservative religious organization which opposes SSM (or gay rights in general). By the SPLC's "fatwa" against the organization, a lone activist attempted murder at the offices of that group.
If the production of this video is deplorable, why then not criticize SPLC's "fatwa" and those who propagate it?
Or does the body count matter? Is it less important because the effort to kill was unsuccessful?
Do you really think that this does not threaten 1st Amendment liberties?
Do you really claim that this does not have a chilling effect, caused by the threat of violence from the outraged party?
The 1st is still law, but it is under assault on many fronts by people with diverse motives.
Some just want to punish Chik-fil-A, and others want a U.N. law against blasphemy.
To the extent that civil unrest has been caused by offending believers, should we draw a line here to prevent unrest, or should we champion liberty?
What makes it wrong to produce a film that mocks Islam by dramatic portrayal of its own history taken from its own texts, but fine to wave a sign that boldly proclaims "God Hates Shrimp" to mock Jewish sexual ethics? Or the Woodmont Baptist Church's interpretation of their scriptures?
How do you know this video was "expressly designed to instigate the violence?"
What about taking the position that violence is not a valid response to being embarassed?
The remark about Xianity and Judaism also being mockable strikes me as an effort at a moral equivalence argument.
Are all religions "equally bad" or are there actually differences that make some sets of believers more violent, less tolerant, and more likely to kill in the name of their religion?
I assert that we can judge and criticize religions based both upon the religious texts to which they claim to adhere, and the behavior of the believers.
If you agree, can you examine Islam on that basis without the distraction tactic of pointing out "other religions suck to!" or not?
What higher standard should we hold?
Do we ban blasphemy to appease the mob?
Is there a slippery slope effect in play?
If we exercise prior restraint on speech that offends the religious, what possible consequences can we foresee?
Will there be similar objections that depictions of forbidden sexaul behavior must also be restrained?
Must consumption of alcohol or shellfish or pork be forbidden lest it offend?
Put differently; why fight efforts to "legislate morality" in the west when it comes to blue laws (and the rest of the Xian theocratic agenda), but fail to oppose vigorously Muslim efforts to impose religious law in our secular world?
While it is not a good thing to point and laugh saying something to the effect of "Those guys belong to group X, and therefore we must laugh at them!" it is the spirit of free inquiry that compells many of us to say instead "Look at what these people believe, this makes no sense, and may present a danger to public safety."