dagblog - Comments for "Hi, We're Going To Offend You"

Yeah, this kind of thing irks

Michael Maiello — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 12:29:59 +0000

In reply to Interesting coincidence this

Yeah, this kind of thing irks me and it goes way beyond the bounds of "different notion of free speech." It simply isn't free speech. I think in trying to be diplomatic on this issue that I lost sight of how absolute speech rights have to be in order to be meaningful.

Of course, one could make all sorts of arguments about priorities here, especially as this is commercial speech. But sometimes you have to side with the crass interests of the clothing store without much regard for the sacred.

This way of thinking, though, has implications for issues such as Citizens United. We are saying here that a clothing company has the right to advertise in the manner it wants to. What if this same company also wants somebody to be a US Senator?

Interesting coincidence this

ocean-kat — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:01:39 +0000

In reply to Hi, We're Going To Offend You

Interesting coincidence this ruling from France came down in time for your blog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.

The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge.

The authorities in the Italian city of Milan banned the poster last month.

Yes, other countries have different laws about free speech. But if this is any indication of how they work I don't think they can even claim to have free speech.

Terry Jones gets the same

Anonymous PS — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 19:58:16 +0000

In reply to Terry Jones deserves the same

Terry Jones gets the same protections, no?

That was not Jones's intent. His intent was to say that Islam is a despicable religion.

Isn't Pussy Riot in jail?

It's more valid, IMO, because the message is more valid; it enlightens. Jones's message is just about ignorance and bigotry.

The Greek reaction shows, if anything, that we aren't so different from Muslims in our ability to get angry and destructive when offended.

AFAIK, Mr. CFA still has a business, wasn't censored or put in jail. He spoke freely and demonstrators demonstrated freely. We have freedom of speech, but we don't have freedom from all consequences of our speech.

Not entirely sure what your point is here-:) But these are my reactions to whatever it was you're saying-:)

If you're running Iran you

Michael Maiello — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:38:45 +0000

In reply to I was just thinking someone

If you're running Iran you definitely want your people focused on the threat from the White House rather than their problems with you.

I was just thinking someone

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:24:53 +0000

In reply to I'm with you, AA. Not to

I was just thinking someone should tell them they are proving "The Decider" right that "they hate us for our freedoms." But then I thought again: some of those guys that spoke yesterday secretly would probably prefer Bushes back over Obama's & Clinton's. It's all absurd.

Oops, here's the Friedman

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:17:47 +0000

In reply to But you are forgetting that

Oops, here's the Friedman link fixed.

I'm with you, AA. Not to

Michael Maiello — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:20:16 +0000

In reply to But you are forgetting that

I'm with you, AA. Not to mention all of the actually state-sponsored hate speech against the western world that comes out of their part of the world. If a drone showed up every time a U.S. flag was burned at a state-sanctioned protest, how would the world react?

But you are forgetting that

artappraiser — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:09:56 +0000

In reply to While I can't see the

But you are forgetting that this situation has to do with protecting diplomats and diplomatic offices..

Haven't all these leaders have just stood up at the UN and basically said that all countries should be responsible for the speech of every one of its citizens on the internet, and if they don't agree to do that, they shouldn't be surprised if embassies or diplomats are violently attacked in the host countries? They are saying that they agree that each country should be held responsible for the speech of each and every one of its citizens?

It is one thing for an iman in a country to issue a fatwa against a Salman Rushdie or a Danish newspaper, it seems like a whole 'nother big step up to me to have the leaders of countries basically announcing at the UN that they will be holding the countries of residence responsible from now on if they don't punish not just their Rushdie's and their newspapers, but also any speech that insults them by every damn citizen publishing on the internet anywhere

Does it matter if the persons doing it are a couple of nuts where nobody paid any attention to their video until the Egyptian media covered it? No it does not, they say, the country is responsible, if you don't prosecute them for it, you are responsible. Does the country get a break if the person insulting is say, a pre-teen and developmentally disabled? Possibly not if it's Pakistan! Have we disciplined in some way soldiers actually representing our government if they insult via blasphemy? We see that you do. Does that count for anything? Not much, as you don't do it harshly enough, and you still have to discipline each and every citizen that insults.

I almost feel like maybe it would be wiser for Secretary Clinton and many of her cohorts to stop the nice-nice and scream a version of the old Susan Powter commercial: STOP THE INSANITY! Get real, stop the charade, you are talking like children, this is bullshit. The US government had zero to do with this video and YOU KNOW THAT. Do you want to participate in international diplomacy or don't you? Shall we just resort to duelling at 40 paces when one of our citizens posts a picture of Mohammed and we don't put him in prison and one of your citizens burns our flag and you don't put him in prison? Right let's just fuggeabout all this diplomacy stuff developed over the centuries since Marco Polo, and send all the diplomats home.

Friedman had some interesting quotes in his last column from Mideast media, of moderates questioning their countries' own sanity. Of course he probably had his assistant working overtime to find the few examples to make his "hopeful" point, and also picks out the ones that talk about his favorite topic, competing in a globalized world.. Speaking of hate speech, I must admit that it's nice to see the MEMRI examples in his article that are translating something other than Mideast hate speech about the Great Satan(s.) But once again, it's not that hopeful to me if the countries' leaders are getting up at the UN saying what they said; they didn't ask for respect for their lowest common denominator citizens, they instead demanded that we prosecute ours.

I believe that Rushdie's

Michael Maiello — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:41:53 +0000

In reply to Terry Jones deserves the same

I believe that Rushdie's protections were arranged by the British government. But, I take your point, in general. But, look at it this way... if I innocently go hiking in the Middle East and cross into Iran or Syria and get myself detained, the US State Department will step in to help, but they will only go so far. The Seals are not going to come rescue me, for practical reasons, yes, but also because I'm not a national security priority, and neither is Terry Jones.

Terry Jones deserves the same

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:49:20 +0000

In reply to While I can't see the

Terry Jones deserves the same protections as Salman Rushdie.

If Jones wants to show the Mideast is intolerant, he succeeded. That wasn't Rushdie's point, but he sure got taught the lesson.

Pussy Riot offended the Orthodox church - along with Putin. Any different than a movie overdub intended to inflame the Mideast?

Why is Piss Christ more valid art/speech than Terry Jones' burning? Isn't Greek reaction to the movie of "Last Temptation of Christ" much the same as Muslim reaction to Rushdie? (okay, just riots, no fatwas....)

And then there's that Chick-fil-a guy who just spoke out about what he considers "family values" - guess he won't risk free speech again anytime soon.