Ban Groups related to Drawing Picture of Prophet M

Boomer wrote: Gibbs wrote: Dude how am I spamming? I make a comment. You don't see repetitive posts. I'm merely addressing you. If you think I'm spamming tell the moderators. If anyone is acting like a whiny b**ch its you. Yes I openly admit I'm picking on you. Get over it or leave. I just find your OCD-like fascination with stalking me to be really creepy. Have you ever been under indictment or served time in prison for stalking other men?

Yeah I change what I said because its disrespectful to Muslims and I'm not on the street so I'm not going to use foul language. Steppe hasn't even partook in this circus and when he responds you call his comment, "spam" again L2read.

No one knocked sense into some of the wrong claims here? Probably didn't bother.
Having looked at the cartoons and the comments of the group members on facebook myself, I facepalm everytime I see someone supporting it for 'freedom of speech'. Have you even looked at those cartoons or the comments that were passed around? Happened to look at just a couple of myself. There's a dang huge difference between 'freedom of speech' and severe insults, and intentional ones mind you, to a highly loved and respected figure of a faith. Hell, you wanna express your views, do it and you're infact encouraged. Did anyone stop you? Nah. Why do you think forums like these exist. But you call intentional severe insults as 'expression of views?' Its not muslims' fault you don't know of the difference. Period.


Edited by xx__Ace__xx - 04 June 2010 at 2:24am

Larry wrote: In reply to Boomer's message, the author of the response asks Boomer whether "we have a right to free speech to insult people?" The author goes on to say that "this totally challenges the idea of free speech...We need to examine speech more and determine what is actual speech and what is excessive speech." "Excessive" speech? I am astonished at the reasoning behind this question. Who is going to determine what is "actual speech" and what is "excessive" speech? What basis will they use to to make their decisions? The point of free speech is that it is FREE SPEECH. If you choose to take offense at the free speech of others then that is up to you. But just because you are "insulted" doesn't give you the right to determine which speech should be free and which speech should be censored. This hardly qualifies as the definition of free speech.

Larry I do have a name and its not "author." Free speech is a great ideology but in reality free speech is not free. Even though we live in a country where we can burn the American flag right in front of the white house without restraint doesn't mean we can also say in public that the president should be assassinated.

As we see, one can be an example of political expression of dissonance .and the other could be inciting potential violent behavior. The issue with drawing Muhammad with a turban in the form of a bomb (see first drawing) is not only an inaccurate depiction of a religious figure, but its a provocative picture that may create tension.

The reason we need to examine the idea of free speech is because we need to understand whether the speech presented does not impede upon the freedom of others. Unfortunately if so called free speech provocates violence then its not freespeech but rather (and I put this lightly) pissing people off.

Like I said before if I drew a picture of a black kid sitting eating watermelon and holding a basketball and passed it around to only African Americans would this be a form of expressing myself or am I provoking a reaction? If so, then how is it free speech?