Ppl keep trying to take this off track...
Discuss the limits and responsibilities of free speech . Any other bull ****.... not interested
Last edited:
|
|
|
Paris Attack
- Thread starter N3WMAN
- Start date
Ppl keep trying to take this off track...
Discuss the limits and responsibilities of free speech . Any other bull ****.... not interested
Send me the bill.
Ppl keep trying to take this off track...
Discuss the limits and responsibilities of free speech . Any other bull ****.... not interested
Again... The irony is criticizing free speech while living in a Western nation is truly galling. Feel free to move to an Islamic nation if you want to have lots of limits put on your free speech. Since you live in a Western nation do you accept any responsibility for the treatment of Muslims elsewhere? You help elect the officials who form the government who trades and has diplomatic relations with the U.S., Israel and other nations who have significant impact on the middle east.
I guess what I can't seem to wrap my head around is that people come here every year as refugees who are fleeing nations with little to no free speech and few rights and then they come here and criticize how our country is run and want to change our nation. If you think that Canada is so bad then either do not move yourself and/or your families here in the first place, or go elsewhere where you feel comfortable. I vote with my feet all the time in my life. That is either with employment, shopping, education, friendships etc.
I am a fifth generation Canadian but if I truly felt that I did not want to live here then I would try and get employment elsewhere and emigrate to another nation.
Whats your take on the topic of free speech.. thats the topic... unlimited or with reasonable limits..
Other topics start a new thread.. we have been dragged off topic quiet a bit so.. lets avoid it.
Other topics start a new thread.. we have been dragged off topic quiet a bit so.. lets avoid it.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Unlimited.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906428/Mark-Zuckerberg-says-Facebook-wrong-remove-post-Pakistani-actor-comparing-criticising-Islam-using-N-word-praising-Hitler.html Facebook not only deleted his post but also disabled his account. So much for freedom of speech.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ising-Islam-using-N-word-praising-Hitler.html
Not only was his post deleted but also his account disabled
Not only was his post deleted but also his account disabled
Deleting that post was the right thing to do imho
In a mature and fair society limits would not be needed however society as a whole is not mature as such I believe in responsible free speech not just unlimited free speech
Last edited:
Even I can't agree with that. Not being able to possess or publish child pornography is an example of reasonable limitations on free speech.
I guess what is open to interpretation is what constitutes "hate speech" and as such is not subject or protected by one's right of free speech.
Sharfaisel would argue that any depiction of the prophet Mohammed -including caricatures or cartoons- fall outside free speech. I would argue otherwise.
If Muslim nations want to flog, beat, be-head, or torture their subjects for depicting Mohammed then fill their boots. I say this although I find such punishments inhumane and beyond the pale.
In Western nations we allow a reasonable level of free speech. It is not unlimited.
I would argue that publications like Frank in Canada are welcome to continue their satirical style of journalism. Does Shahfaisal feel that it would be justified or reasonable for an armed attack on either Frank magazine in Canada if they were to publish satirical cartoon depictions of Mohammed? I would personally feel that Frank (either one) or any mainstream newspaper in Canada should be able to re-publish the contentious depictions of Mohammed. While I personally would not do this out of not wanting to be insensitive to Muslims we live in a "free" society and such depictions do not constitute a hate crime and thus are okay to publish.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Nope... I said unlimited, and I mean it.
Saying that though, the company has the right to hire and fire whoever they want. If they don't want an anti-Semitic working for them, that is their choice. The guy can go work for the anti-Semitic newspaper down the road.
Facebook is also a private company... they have the right to determine what they want to allow to post and not. In neither case is it a government saying what can or cannot be posted.
I think Shah and Rashidme both need a lesson in how free speech works.
In unrelated news, China just banned the Burqa in it's largest city: http://qz.com/324805/china-has-just-banned-the-burqa-in-its-biggest-muslim-city/
I wonder if this will increase the terrorist activity in the Muslim parts of China, and I wonder what China's response will be?
Note ** I am not for Burqa bans either... I think people should be allowed to wear what they want if it is their choice, however I think they must be willing to at least temporarily remove the burqa if proper identification is required -- like at a bank, a border, getting a driver's license, health card, etc etc...
Please refer to my previous posts in regards to my position on your example
Yes Facebook and newspapers are private companies but they are also social platforms which means social standards and social expectations apply... firing one guy for anti Semitism and encouraging/continuing hate speech targeted at muslims does not go hand in hand..
One standard one rule...
Yes Facebook and newspapers are private companies but they are also social platforms which means social standards and social expectations apply... firing one guy for anti Semitism and encouraging/continuing hate speech targeted at muslims does not go hand in hand..
One standard one rule...
Last edited:
Interesting perspective...
I wonder if there is a nation anywhere in the world with truly unlimited free speech? What would you think is the nation with the most free speech? It certainly is not Canada and we are a pretty Liberal nation.
If Shahfaisal had his way we would be living in a less free society.
I would not be too terribly distraught if I were forced to get EU citizenship and passport and had to go back to my parents native country of Denmark, which is a democratic country forming part of the European Union, and which shares common western values including reasonable freedom of speech and religion, and which has a standard of living not a whole lot different from that in Canada even though the taxes are pretty high (which is why my parents left in 1953). I would likely exercise the current freedom of EU citizens to move amongst the EU countries and live somewhere else that's warmer and with better scenery, like Italy, perhaps. But it really wouldn't trouble me.
A lot of people who came to this country from somewhere else, might not relish the thought of moving back to where they came from ... and perhaps ought to be questioning the wisdom of trying to make this country more like where they came from instead of accepting it for what it is now ...
Last edited:
Now why is it so hard For sonny and caboose to respond in the same manner as Brian no insults.. no attacks simply his point of view while making sure it is not offensive
Anyways I am going off topic again.. sorry
Anyways I am going off topic again.. sorry
There is no such thing as completely unlimited free speech, because it would cause other problems. "Your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbor's nose begins." There is a balance that has to be achieved between the rights of people to take actions, and the rights of those same people to be free of adverse effects caused by other people taking differing actions.
There are differences in various details, but the whole of the developed world are more-or-less on par.
Id checks have been part of the Islamic world for a very long time for example courtrooms or any other area where ID check would be an absolute necessity can be carried out by female staff in a private area where the women's rights are protected while the requirement of making sure it is the correct person are satisfied
Only where necessary. Harassing a women in a mall.or street for id is not acceptable.. ID check to buy eggs?? Alcohol I understand. . For age check etc
Only where necessary. Harassing a women in a mall.or street for id is not acceptable.. ID check to buy eggs?? Alcohol I understand. . For age check etc
Last edited:
Very good post.
I am happy -for the most part- with the limitations on free speech in Canada. Freedom of assembly, association etc are important hallmarks of a typical Western style democracy. There are limits on this of course.
I think most Canadians are happy and content with the current paradigm of free speech. I suspect that Shahfaisal would like to put limits on publications like Frank magazine and most Canadians would not find this acceptable.
To give Shahfaisel a more direct answer to one of his questions. I would not find a publication ban on depictions of the prophet Mohammed a reasonable infringement of free speech. He and other Muslims may have an issue with this but that is one of the good and bad things of an open and free democracy.
I would never personally publish these because I truly do not want to offend or bother Muslims in any way. What I choose to do personally though does not change my opinion that our society should be as free as possible even if that means that sometimes people or cultures can and do get feelings hurt at sometimes.
Zoodles do chime in on the links posted in some of the recent posts.. a violation of non muslims rights and its not considered free speech by some even though its far less offensive
There have been a lot of links and I have looked through a few. Is there a link or two in particular that you would like me to consider and comment on?
|
|
|
|
|