Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (10 Viewers)

[Catenaccio]

Doing a cartoon on jews may be taboo in some places but you don't get blown up for doing it and have clerics declaring a Fatwa - thats the difference.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

@Goodfella Jyllands-Posten the newspapers that publicised the first Muhammed-cartoons have publicised antisemitic cartoons as well.


SOOOOOOO how do you liek dem apples?

- - - Updated - - -

A culture of fear in society is the certain path to Dictatorship. If we start giving in to the fear and build society on fear, we will lose our democracy, our freedom and our values.


(Yes, I'm the one who needs to read a book on democracy)

According to you democracy has no inherent values, so yes, you do need to read a book on democracy.

 

[Maddy]

According to you democracy has no inherent values, so yes, you do need to read a book on democracy.

Don't worry sweetheart and remember to quote me when you make such claims.

 

[Seven]

What you clearly fail to understand is that banning an ideology because it wants to overthrow the democracy is an attack on Freedom of Speech and the Democracy.

There you go, pus.

This essentially means that your democracy is an empty shell with no inherent values. You make the mistake of assuming that a "ban" is a fascist idea.

It is difficult to draw the line. It always is. Deciding where the line should be is what makes us moral though.

 

[Maddy]

There you go, pus.

This essentially means that your democracy is an empty shell with no inherent values. You make the mistake of assuming that a "ban" is a fascist idea.

It is difficult to draw the line. It always is. Deciding where the line should be is what makes us moral though.

You are contradicting yourself. Do you see why? Or do I need to help you?

The link is inherent value and freedom of speech.

 

[Seven]

You are contradicting yourself. Do you see why? Or do I need to help you?

The link is inherent value and freedom of speech.

No. I am not. I already said that before: you seem to think democracy is about one value. It isn't. It's about several. Values which need to co-exist.

For example, which do you think is more important: the right to a fair trail or the right of freedom of speech?

 

[Maddy]

No. I am not. I already said that before: you seem to think democracy is about one value. It isn't. It's about several. Values which need to co-exist.

The thing is I've never claimed that.

I've only claimed that banning an ideology simply because it doesn't fit your world view is borderline fascism. It inhibits freedom of speech [too much].

If that isn't essential Democractic thinking then nothing is. Look up Alexander Meiklejohn's view on freedom of speech (and no he haven't got a law degree).

Let me help you:

To be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.

I clearly need to read a book, yes

 

[Seven]

The thing is I've never claimed that.

I've only claimed that banning an ideology simply because it doesn't fit your world view is borderline fascism. It inhibits freedom of speech [too much].

If that isn't essential Democractic thinking then nothing is. Look up Alexander Meiklejohn's view on freedom of speech (and no he haven't got a law degree).

Let me help you:



I clearly need to read a book, yes

You completely ignore the fact that when you allow fascism in a democratic society, you will harm the right of freedom from discrimination. We can (or should) agree that the right of freedom from discrimination is essential in any democratic society.

This is where you and I disagree. Pretty much the entire Western world disagrees with you. The ECHR and the UN Declaration of Human Rights disagree with you too.

You place the right to freedom of speech above all else. And so does Meiklejohn, who by the way died in an era, when freedom of speech was nowhere near as protected as it is now.

"No constraints on the free flow of information and ideas" - bullshit. There are always constraints. On every right.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

was the champion of free speech, julian assange invited to the paris demonstrations?

 

[king Ale]

There you go, pus.

This essentially means that your democracy is an empty shell with no inherent values. You make the mistake of assuming that a "ban" is a fascist idea.

It is difficult to draw the line. It always is. Deciding where the line should be is what makes us moral though.

Ideally, even the most insolent expressions should be tolerated. From a very personal point of view however, it's indeed a matter of morality. "My" moral judgment, nothing more. But from a social perspective, drawing a line between what's deemed to be freedom of expression and what spreads unwarranted hate is a matter of taking appropriate measures in order to block hatred and protect the society. It's governments' job to decide when, where and for whom this line should be drawn.

 

[Seven]

Ideally, even the most insolent expressions should be tolerated. From a very personal point of view however, it's indeed a matter of morality. "My" moral judgment, nothing more. But from a social perspective, drawing a line between what's deemed to be freedom of expression and what spreads unwarranted hate is a matter of taking appropriate measures in order to block hatred and protect the society. It's governments' jobs to decide when, where and for whom this line should be drawn.

Very well put. And it's precisely their jobs because otherwise it would conflict with other essential rights. We cannot found a democracy just on the right to freedom of speech.

 

[Maddy]

You completely ignore the fact that when you allow fascism in a democratic society, you will harm the right of freedom from discrimination. We can (or should) agree that the right of freedom from discrimination is essential in any democratic society.

This is where you and I disagree. Pretty much the entire Western world disagrees with you. The ECHR and the UN Declaration of Human Rights disagree with you too.

You place the right to freedom of speech above all else. And so does Meiklejohn, who by the way died in an era, when freedom of speech was nowhere near as protected as it is now.

"No constraints on the free flow of information and ideas" - bullshit. There are always constraints. On every right.

I don't want to allow fascism in a practical sense. I just don't want to disallow it as a thought/ideology. There's a very distinct line between the two.

And please the West in general do not at all disagree with me on my take on Freedom of Speech. Are you kidding me? Intellectuals all around the world would argue exactly what I argue - It's a continuous discussion among academics within the field (What is democracy). But I'm glad you've started acknowledging that we are disagreeing rather than me being ignorant. Because on this manner I'm not.

And please stay away from your ad hominem about my lacking law degree the next tiem around, 'cause you have no clue on my academic background.

- - - Updated - - -

Ideally, even the most insolent expressions should be tolerated. From a very personal point of view however, it's indeed a matter of morality. "My" moral judgment, nothing more. But from a social perspective, drawing a line between what's deemed to be freedom of expression and what spreads unwarranted hate is a matter of taking appropriate measures in order to block hatred and protect the society. It's governments' job to decide when, where and for whom this line should be drawn.

Which is why I don't want to ban Islam as a political Ideology, but I think a call out on the killing of Jews should be criminal (an example).

- - - Updated - - -

was the champion of free speech, julian assange invited to the paris demonstrations?

Sadly not. A lot of poeple who jail journalist on a regular basis did attend. Long live international relations!

 

[Seven]

I don't want to allow fascism in a practical sense. I just don't want to disallow it as a thought/ideology. There's a very distinct line between the two.

[/I]

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. It's the first time you've said. And it is very distinct from what you said before. This I can somewhat agree with. Although it is virtually hollow as well, because it's impossible to forbid thoughs. Only their practical execution can be forbidden.

Also, pretty much everyone has already agreed that there are constraints to the free flow of ideas and information. This automatically follow out of the ECHR and the UN Declaration on Human Rights which are, if not perfect, pretty much universally accepted. Meiklejohn is at best outdated.

 

[Maddy]

Aha. Now we're getting somewhere. It's the first time you've said. And it is very distinct from what you said before. This I can somewhat agree with. Although it is virtually hollow as well, because it's impossible to forbid thoughs. Only their practical execution can be forbidden.

Also, pretty much everyone has already agreed that there are constraints to the free flow of ideas and information. This automatically follow out of the ECHR and the UN Declaration on Human Rights which are, if not perfect, pretty much universally accepted. Meiklejohn is at best outdated.

It's not different at all. It'sbeen my claim the whole tiem

Your argument about banning political islam however is a breach of the humans rights you yourself use as an argument

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
^ Top

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

I'm gonna go teach some in kids in a subject called Social Science. Today's subject: Muhammed Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Speech

But you were right Seven. I haven't got a degree in Law

 

[Seven]

It's not different at all. It'sbeen my claim the whole tiem

Your argument about banning political islam however is a breach of the humans rights you yourself use as an argument



I'm gonna go teach some in kids in a subject called Social Science. Today's subject: Muhammed Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo and Freedom of Speech

But you were right Seven. I haven't got a degree in Law

You're running around in circles. We all know what I mean by banning political Islam. Like I said before: it is impossible to ban an idea.

Yes, so you're giving a class about Charlie Hebdo? What does that mean?

 

[Fred]

was the champion of free speech, julian assange invited to the paris demonstrations?

Always asking the tough questions. Though I doubt anyone would argue with you on the protest's participants, everybody and their mothers would agree that it was nothing but a PR practice. FFS some of those in attendance, especially from the arab world have done a lot more harm to the ideal of free speech, than the fucking radicals they're protesting against.

- - - Updated - - -



Sadly not. A lot of poeple who jail journalist on a regular basis did attend. Long live international relations!

The very same people who jail not only journalists but other normal citizens for just voicing the slightest of criticisms to their rule, were in that protest. Absolutely appalling and hypocritical really, fuck international relations.

 

[Maddy]

The very same people who jail not only journalists but other normal citizens for just voicing the slightest of criticisms to their rule, were in that protest. Absolutely appalling and hypocritical really, fuck international relations.

The march to watch yesterday was the one with 4 million frenchies with different backgrounds all calling out for unity and freedom. Muslims, Jews, buddhist etc. all together without any animosity.

The leaders of the world are just pathetic

- - - Updated - - -

You're running around in circles. We all know what I mean by banning political Islam. Like I said before: it is impossible to ban an idea.

Yes, so you're giving a class about Charlie Hebdo? What does that mean?

I'm standing still and have been for a while.

It means that I teach in Social Science and due to the events last week we're going to discuss Freedom of speech with Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo as a baseline.

Next week we'll be discussing how to balance freedom of speech with Hatespeech, racism and so on.

 

[Seven]

I'm standing still and have been for a while.

It means that I teach in Social Science and due to the events last week we're going to discuss Freedom of speech with Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo as a baseline.

Next week we'll be discussing how to balance freedom of speech with Hatespeech, racism and so on.

Yes. So you teach in Social Science.

And you also quote a man who says there should be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. When, quite frankly, history has demonstrated otherwise.

Of course we have to aim for the biggest possible degree of freedom of speech. But there are limits. There have to be. Every right has limits. I don't understand why you insist on claiming the opposite, when it's simply impossible.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, something you seem to forget, limits to a human right do not necessarily mean it is breached. Otherwise every judgment of the ECHR would be a breach in itself.

 

[Hængebøffer]

was the champion of free speech, julian assange invited to the paris demonstrations?

There's a difference between Maddy's opinion and the law. You guys made the same fail, when you argued with Rus.
Americans have, by law, more freedom og speech than Europeans, but the censorship is stronger in The States.
You seem to have a different opinion about stuff as soon as Islam is involved.

 

[Fred]

The march to watch yesterday was the one with 4 million frenchies with different backgrounds all calling out for unity and freedom. Muslims, Jews, buddhist etc. all together without any animosity.

The leaders of the world are just pathetic

- - - Updated - - -



I'm standing still and have been for a while.

It means that I teach in Social Science and due to the events last week we're going to discuss Freedom of speech with Jyllands-Posten and Charlie Hebdo as a baseline.

Next week we'll be discussing how to balance freedom of speech with Hatespeech, racism and so on.

I've no problems at all with the march/protest. My problem is with some of the world leaders in attendance, and you know despite the fact that I've always been a vocal critic of western governments foreign policies, at the very least they can claim to preserve free speech in their countries, as for some of the third world leaders, I literally burst out laughing when I saw some of them in the march.