The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on December 16, 2015, 06:17:40 PM
-
hill2016 (778 posts)
On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it?
Magazine publishes an article satirical/offensive/blasphemous to a religion. Member of said religion gets offended and shoots up the office of the magazine.
Whose fault would you say it is:
- the magazine for publishing the article, even though it was protected free speech
- the gunman
- the religion
The point about protecting speech is that especially when it is hateful or offensive to you that it needs protection most (other than a few limited exceptions e.g. incitement to violence).
Hopefully we can have a rational, fact-based analysis/discussion. Emotions tend to color one's perception of the matter at hand.
guillaumeb (3,622 posts)
20. I have seen many of the cartoons.
And as a French speaking Quebecker who CAN read and understand the subtext, I can say that the cartoons are definitely anti-religious. That cultural subtext, called in French laicite, is one that I recognize because it is also present in Quebec. Laicite can be approximately translated as meaning the opposite of religious. Anti-religion and anti-clerical ideas have their roots in the Revolution and were a reaction to the Catholic Church's domination of French life.
In Quebec, laicite, along with cultural identity, was among the things that motivated our "quiet revolution" of the 1960s.
In Quebec also the Catholic Church played a very dominant role in daily life.
But that aside, there are legal limits to what the French call free speech. Those things that I mentioned are all considered unlawful speech and are all prosecutable offenses.
I blame the shooters for the deaths, and the victims for helping perpetuate an atmosphere of hatred. Does that excuse the deaths? Of course not
Warpy (85,782 posts)
6. It's the fault of swaggering assholes with guns, there are no exceptions
Next question?
Free speech had nothing to do with this. Legitimizing hate and lies on national media is a problem, but no one forces a rabbity little man to pick up a gun to feel powerful and nobody forces him to point it at unarmed people whose crime was that they went to work that day. If he didn't hear that bullshit out of the pulpit and on Pox News, the voices in his otherwise empty head would tell him all about it.
loyalsister (8,922 posts)
81. Five backwoods homophobes having beers
enjoy rehashing the latest Rush Limbaugh gay bashing. Suppose they decide to kill a gay youth after building rage by feeding off of each other. Only one actually kills someone after the fact. Is that individual the only one who carries any responsibility? Would you claim the actual murder did not begin with the hate speech?
A person does not have to be criminally liable to be partly responsible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027390760
-
loyalsister (8,922 posts)
81. Five backwoods homophobes having beers
enjoy rehashing the latest Rush Limbaugh gay bashing. Suppose they decide to kill a gay youth after building rage by feeding off of each other. Only one actually kills someone after the fact. Is that individual the only one who carries any responsibility? Would you claim the actual murder did not begin with the hate speech?
A person does not have to be criminally liable to be partly responsible.
That would make Obozo culpable for the riots in Ferguson then wouldn`t it?
-
Hopefully we can have a rational, fact-based analysis/discussion. Emotions tend to color one's perception of the matter at hand.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*BREATH*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
This person has NOO idea where it is!
-
That would make Obozo culpable for the riots in Ferguson then wouldn`t it?
And the deaths of more than one or two cops.
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Please, do not reproduce. Please?
-
That would make Obozo culpable for the riots in Ferguson then wouldn`t it?
Yep.
And, for that matter, Al Sharpton would be culpable for the Crown Heights Riots and the Freddie's Fashion Mart incident, and Al Gore would be culpable for the nutcase who held people hostage in the Discovery Channel building.
-
I wonder why DU-folk revile Catholics, Evangelicals, and "Fundamentalists" so much if, as they so frequently profess, they fear them.
No, actually, I don't wonder ...
-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
*BREATH*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
This person has NOO idea where it is!
I damned near suffocated myself from laughing so hard. :cheersmate:
-
hill2016 (778 posts)
On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it?
Magazine publishes an article satirical/offensive/blasphemous to a religion. Member of said religion gets offended and shoots up the office of the magazine.
Whose fault would you say it is:
- the magazine for publishing the article, even though it was protected free speech
- the gunman
- the religion
The point about protecting speech is that especially when it is hateful or offensive to you that it needs protection most (other than a few limited exceptions e.g. incitement to violence).
Hopefully we can have a rational, fact-based analysis/discussion. Emotions tend to color one's perception of the matter at hand.
Narcissistic self absorbed.