great points, mchowdry... intercourse of the minds is great.

?do you voluntarily respect your mother or your religion or yourself? i don't think so.?

Of course! How can you possibly argue any other way?

There are many juvenile delinquents who freely choose not to respect their mothers. There are many people who freely choose not to respect their religion and become atheist. There are many people who willful abuse their own bodies after falling into depression. I know because I have counseled many of these people.

So how can you say that respect is not voluntary? In every example you give of supposed ?involuntary respect?, I can show you where people have chosen not to give any respect.

?and no i did not say "respect was a valid reason for censorship." i just said that if one develops respect, then they automatically curb offensive speech. that is NOT, i reiterate NOT censorship.?

Now you are splitting hairs. You said;

?so while we let others say as they wish, they should also understand that they can face repercussions for it?

In short, ?say what you please but we will make you pay?? and the proof is the new of burning embassies and death threats. Do you think this ?mob justice? is not a form of censorship? After all, here we see brute force being used to prohibit free speech. That falls under the definition of censorship quite nicely.

?"censorship is never justified" is a naive statement at best. would you impose regulations on your kids as to what they can expose themselves to??

This is a bit of an irrelevant argument. When a parent imposes their restrictions on a child, that is not censorship because the child does not have the same ?rights? of a grown adult. These ?rights? are deferred to the parent?s judgment. Most Muslims and Danes are not ?kids?. They do not need you to decide what they can and can?t say, as if there were incapable of using their own judgment.

?another good reason for censorship (not for all but for many as indicated in that article) is Holocaust-denial in Europe. After the repercussions of the sytemic annihilation of 4m Jews, censorship warrants a form of anti-regression and bigotry.?

This is a popular but misguided argument. Who gets to decide what bigotry is and what is not? Once you give one person the right to control what you can and can?t say, what is to stop them abusing that right? There are homosexuals who want to ban the Old Testament because parts of it can be considered ?hate speech?. The same can be said of any holy text if you really put your mind to it. Would you be willing to sacrifice passages of the Quran, if the politicians of the day decided that it was not politically correct enough?

Once you start making laws against ?hate speech?, then comes the laws against ?incitement to violence? and then, ?glorifying terrorism? and then ?giving aide and comfort to the enemy by criticizing the government? and before you know it, you will wake up in some gulag after being sentenced for committing a thought crime. In the last 100 years I can give you plenty of examples where the prohibition of free speech for ?noble causes? led to restrictions on freedom and the repression of whole societies. What makes you think it can?t happen again? Yet, this is the slippery slope you are advocating we stand on.

Would it not be better to instead simply punish those who actually violated human rights? Why persecute those who you think are only talking about evil deeds? Is there no responsibility to prosecute those who actually commit violence?

Ps. Hitler did not kill 4 million Jews. He killed 7 million. Notice how I am not going to persecute you for denying the holocaust of 3 million Jews. Isn?t free speech wonderful?

Hmcq,

'Yes you can push the envelope but we all have our limits. Let me perhaps give an extreme example. Would you call calling women bitches or men dogs free speech?'

Of course. I was just watching Ali G last night. He does that quite often. No one carted him off to jail. Isn't free speech wonderful?

As long as no one's human rights are violated, what is gained by banning this form of free speech?

We can all agree that no such thing as 100% free speech does exist; my point is that it SHOULD exist, without any limit.

History shows that when society has colluded to prevent free speech, it has often used arbitrary and misguided standards... which today we realize to be completely backward and antithetical to the progress of civilization.

There are examples of Prophets being persecuted and even killed for spreading the message of Allah, simply because it was considered 'offensive' or 'blasphemous'. It's amusing to consider how much the people here who propose limits on free speech, have in common with those who supported the punishment dealt to our prophets for their ?blasphemy?.

Conclusion: Free speech should always be free, no matter how distasteful you find it.

Junaid_z,

Respect is not a valid reason for censorship.

Respect is voluntary. How can respect have any meaning if it was compulsory? If someone pretends to respect your religion just to stay out of jail, what is that respect worth?

Answer: Censorship is never justified. If you don't like free speech, you don't have to read it, watch it, like it or love it. As long as someone is not infringing on your rights, they should have the right to say whatever they please and you should have the right to ignore them.

Hmcq,

You say; 'The limits placed on "free speech" are based on the culture, traditions, laws and the people of an area/country.'

I believe people were burned at the stake for suggesting the world was round, that the Pope was not divine and that the earth revolved around the sun. So, what makes you think that, 'culture, traditions, laws and the people of an area/country' are always right?

On the contrary, if you start telling people that they can't express certain ideas and thoughts without having prior approval, the progress of civilization will decrease. I believe the total sum of human knowledge doubles every four years. How will that change if you impede the way we communicate with each other?

The free exchange of thoughts and ideas must always be free... even those which we find nonsensical, offensive and even humiliating. What gives you any more right over the ideas of another person, than they have over yours?

As the article states, a significant part of modern Europe's outlook is a reaction to the Holocaust, in which Europe horrified itself. I certainly hope that it doesn't take a Muslim Holocaust to instill greater mutual respect.

For my part, I think all free speech should be protected.

How can we say we have free speech if we only allow the speech we don't find offensive?

cool, you read it? amazing innit?

junaid...i knew it...all this time you've been calling me banana woman was really your way of showing affection..how could i have been so blind. and those times...did the infatuation start on the soccer field or was it just all my sacrastic comments on naseeb?
so, when do i get my candy?

taugi, thanks for posting article link (A)

there are many issues here, and one of the most immediate ones is that many media forms have decided to republish the inflammatory cartoons. this is imp for those appalled by the cartoons. as such, instead of trying to have the common working class answer to the media leaders, have the media answer. then, those who advertise in the media should then be held accountable.

all publicationsss

boycott the newspaper (all publications which posted the cartoons) and their advertisers.. start on 1 mar. see how THAT goes..

So that means I could probably get some of that yummy Danish lingonberry jam on sale, right? Yeah!

I just got back from Dubai and noticed that they don't sell any Danish products. In fact, entire gulf coast is boycotting Danish products.

Junaid, just get Nadia a flower, and stop annoying the rest of us. (Some chocolates won't hurt either.)

nadia, junaid_z has been struck with cupids arrow. hes in love.. and the resulting behaviour is calling women--specifically the ones hes in love with--names. so its a backhanded compliment...in a way

:P

jz, i may not be super-concise, but at least i don't adorn my postings with a gazillion emoticons P:

junaid, you are pissing me off. i have never underestimated your intelligence, though i do take issue with you calling me banana woman over and over. i wasn't trying to demystify or 'clarify' what Nakia said for a bunch of morons. clearly no one here is. but you responded, "but in this reality, everybody picks their battles. you don't see too many non-muslims fighting on our behalf. my time permits me to represent my values and roots, perhaps yours allows you to represent everyone elses". your response made me think that you thought what she was saying was that we need to take part in every cause for everyone. anyhoo, i've had enough. why do you have to be so snarky dude? you don't see any of us being like that.

I think the point that Nakia was trying to make was that it's not JUST about fighting each and every battle--obviously, no one can do that, but at the same time, it's important to speak up when bigotry or racism is manifested twards any group--not just yours. No, you don't have to join a protest every time, but I do feel that there are not enough people 'sticking up' for others. We all have to be sensitive to the circumstances and problems faced by others, and pehaps be more outspoken about it, whether it means standing up to friends when they say bigotted jokes about any group, or signing petitions and joining marches, when you feel there has been injustice. I do not mean to sound like a second-grade teacher here, but I do find it frustrating that so may Muslims I konw are themselves so prejudiced.

JZ, of course everyone picks their battles. Even a full time activist can't fight for everyone. But we should pick a few that are near and dear, and a few not so close to us. If everyone does the same, the world will be a much less bigoted place. Fighting for yourself, and yourself alone is no more than what animals and even plants do. But to fight for another's welfare shows the best of what it means to be human.