Hazardous speech

Ethics and etiquettes on Internet


Hazardous speech
by varjavand

In the age of traditional media, information used to be the property of professionals who could present their expert opinions and engage in face to face or other forms of open debates. They could do so without a fear of verbal attacks or insult to their character. Regrettably, internet has changed all that. Because it is open to the public and is so full of easy to reach resources, internet has blurred the gap between experts and non-experts.

People can find any kind of information on internet, can say anything they want, brag and boast as much as they wish. And, they can do so with impunity. Some may not be able to resist the temptation to engage in information crime as long as they can hide behind the shield of anonymity. It takes a strong person with high moral values to avoid wrongdoings when there is no witness, nor consequence, to his/her action.

Economists tell us that people become careless, or change their behavior if they are not held responsible for the consequence of their action. For example, when I have a full insurance coverage on my automobile with zero deductible, I may become less vigilant in caring for my automobile. Or, I may drive in any street any way I want without being worried about the possible accidents, theft, or act of vandalisms. For the same reason, if I have a health insurance policy that provides me with  100% coverage and no out-of-pocket expenses, you expect me to go to doctor for every twinkle of an eye. I am insulated from risk at the expense of insurance company. In other words, all the resulting costs of my careless decisions are born by another party.
Have you ever been in one of those all-you-can eat restaurants and noticed how much food people waste while eating at these places? They will be, of course, more cautious if they have to pay for everything they order. These are all examples of the problems created by moral hazard. Human beings do not make sensible decisions unless they are held accountable for the outcome of their decisions what ever that may be. In nowhere moral hazard manifests itself more keenly and destructively, than on the internet.

Despite being so useful, internet has created a breed of beasts who can hide behind the wall of anonymity and do whatever they want. Look at those people who bombard you with embarrassing emails trying to sell you something that supposedly help to enlarge certain part of your body! Look at some of these shrewd salesmen who try to spread the fear of unknown in an attempt to rip you off, or those who try to steal your vital financial information to commit financial crimes under your name. Don’t you wish there was an effective way to get rid of these people?

Internet is a safe heaven for those who cannot put up with the face to face encounter. It is like a variety garden you can grow anything in it. It is a guiding light, a deterrent, a facilitator, depending who is using it. If it falls into wrong hands, it could be awfully destructive.

The sad realization that some distracters react to our writings in irresponsive ways should not deter us from coming back to this forum and voice our opinions. I think we should not grant them legitimacy by responding to them directly. By remaining silent, however, we may embolden these people. Only through dissemination of sensible information, we can undermine the presence of the information criminals.

As one sensible reader put it “some can always find something ugly to say” about a person. These are the glass-half-empty people who always complain about negatives and are ignorant of the positives. They apparently think it is fashionable to insult their fellow Iranians? They would be embarrassed to show up in public but not on internet, they think it is ok. These are the individuals, I am guessing, who are obsessed with their past and frustrated with their present. Some time I see some young kids resort to awful-looking body piercing as a method of expression. I tell them you don’t have to resort to body piercing to express yourself. There are lots more better ways to do that safely and more artistically.

Thank God, after information revolution and the surge of public awareness, the hate groups have been dismantled and public bigotry has long been restrained.  Even a small exhibition of bigotry would be quite costly at this day and age. Remember, New York radio talk-show host Don Imus whose insensitive racial slurs created national outcry and his employer was forced to terminate his contract? He could simply get away with it if his crime was committed under the cover of unanimity.

Remember, never lose your leniency and your sense of humor in public and if the logic and the civility offend you, do not participate in this forum, or any other, for that matter. We can always see better if we stand on the shoulder of others.


Recently by varjavandCommentsDate
The Rise of Secular America
Oct 29, 2012
War with Iran and the Economy
Oct 10, 2012
Why Do We Believe? II
Aug 25, 2012
more from varjavand

To: Kouroush Sassanian (Re: I am sorry if I have offended....)

by Ahmad Bahai (not verified) on

You forgot to mention your real profession under which you have also posted on iranian.com:

"koskesheh bacheh kooni"


I am sorry if I have offended people

by Kouroush Sassanian (not verified) on

I want to make sure that you fully understand what my background is:

I was devoted to Mammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Also, I am a Zartoshti, and when I was growing up, I grew up among the Jewish people.

Consequently, I developed strong negative feelings towards Islam.

Please remeber that when you are reading my comments in this blog. Thanks

P.S. I also use multiple names throughout this site. Names such as Ahmad Bahai, Anonymouspb, Anonymous2008, babakoohi, Kos Sher, and most recently, Nader Vanaki, and Kafka.

I'll keep you posted of new ones if I use them.


Re- I am the ruler

by Anonymous. (not verified) on

Megalomania, even in crude attempts at jesting, is one of the common symptoms/trait among the Islamist the world over.


It's true, I am the ruler

by Q on

People like Q are the rulers of 70 million enslaved Iranians.

Now, bow before me you heathen...

This explains everything. I must really be a supreme ruler if my slaves are so afraid to even mention their own name in my presence. They are forced to dress like chickens for my amusement! What other explanation is there?

That's power you can't buy!!!

And now, without further ado, I will dedicate this poem to my loyal subjects and slaves:

It's good to be king and have your own world
It helps to make friends, it's good to meet girls
A sweet little queen who can't run away
It's good to be king, whatever it pays


Please Copy Q's statement so

by Shocked (not verified) on

Please Copy Q's statement so he can't erase it.

Isn't it fascinating how a criminal mind (Q et al) works? Murder and taking lives of innocent people are less of affront for sociopaths like him than mere words.

People like Q are the rulers of 70 million enslaved Iranians. No wonder the country is being drowned into an ever growing Swamp of depravity, perversion and inhumanity.


"Under certain

by Anonymous3 (not verified) on

"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." Mark Twain

Stop being such prudes!!!!!!!

Q is Iranian.com's Joseph Goebbels, PURELY DIABOLICAL.


An Article that "iranian.com" does not want you to read

by Free Speech For Everyone (FSFE) (not verified) on

(This article is copied from PressTV.com).
JJ and his "freinds" don't want any links to this article which is published on presstv.com and is relevant to this discussion.
Free Speech For Everyone (FSFE)
Holocaust revisionists and the hypocrisy of the French government
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:26:21
By Paul Grubach

This is an open letter to France's Ambassador to the US, Pierre Vimont, By Paul Grubach, January 15, 2008

Dear Ambassador Vimont

It has been reported that revisionist historian Robert Faurisson will face trial on charges that he made statements at the Iran Holocaust Conference in December 2006, which cast doubt on the Holocaust.

As you know, the Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any public doubt in France about the Holocaust. This legal action was apparently initiated by former President Jaques Chirac. The duplicity, hypocritical double standards, and intellectual impotence of the French government are appalling. Offend Zionist Jews and the French government erupts in indignation.

Yet, if someone makes public statements that are offensive to Muslims, this is depicted as an expression of “free speech.”

The case of the high school philosophy teacher and author, Robert Redeker, illustrates the hypocrisy and double standard most clearly. In a commentary in the center-right daily Le Figaro, he made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion.

[Press TV is obliged to omit a certain Robert Redeker's quote from the original text.]

The French government labeled his statements as “expressions of free speech.” He was not put on trial or dismissed from his job. After receiving death threats, including one from an online Islamic forum, Redeker went into hiding under police protection.

In a show of support, the French government came to the defense of Mr. Redeker. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats "unacceptable." He then added this most blatant falsehood: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)

That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991 he was removed from his university chair on the basis of his Holocaust revisionist views under the Gayssot Act. Many years later he was given a three-month suspended jail term for Holocaust revisionist remarks he made on Iranian television in October 2006.

The double standard here is blatantly obvious. The French government defends a man who insults the Islamic religion, despite the fact that his statements are offensive to millions of Muslims. Indeed, not only did they defend his right to freedom of speech in a well publicized statement, but they offered him police protection as well.

Yet, this same French government allows a French professor to be removed from his university chair, orders criminal probes into his comments, and gives him a suspended jail sentence because of his Holocaust revisionist beliefs. This clearly falsifies Prime Minister Dominque de Villepin's hypocritical claim that France is a democracy “where everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others." One has the right to insult and attack the Islamic religion and deny the existence of God, but Holocaust revisionists are not allowed to freely express their viewpoints. The free speech rights of revisionists like Dr. Faurisson are routinely violated.

Furthermore, it appears as though the policy of the French government to prosecute Holocaust revisionists is simply a reflection of the wishes of influential French Jews. It was reported in the February 4, 2005 issue of The International Jerusalem Post (p.10) that filmmaker Claude Lanzmann wants Holocaust revisionism to be outlawed. In his own words: “How do you fight against Arab denial of the Holocaust? Certainly not like in Western countries. But I don't know, I'm not Sephardic…It has to be outlawed, like in France, that's all.”

If you do prosecute Dr. Faurisson, this will not only demonstrate the French government's hypocrisy, but it will also help to show that the Holocaust legend really is a weak and flimsy ideology that cannot be defended with reason and science. In a word, the Holocaust is a false doctrine that needs oppressive laws and prison sentences to protect it from rational criticism.

Sincerely, Paul Grubach

Holocaust revisionist and researcher Paul Grubach holds an Associate Arts degree in liberal arts, and a Bachelor of Science degree in physics, with a concentration in chemistry and minor in history, from John Carroll University (Ohio).

Press TV has received a copy of this letter.


protected from likes of Q in the US

by Scared of Qs (not verified) on

“we would have to send at least 30-50 people straight to the firing squad” I for one am sure glad unlike his similarly inclined brethrens back in Iran this Q chap does not have any life or death power here in the US.


Absolutely right

by Q on

You guess correctly on this one.

These are the individuals, I am guessing, who are obsessed with their past and frustrated with their present.

It's amazing to what depth of pestilance and extremism guilt and regret can drive otherwise decent people.

Don Imus lost his job because of some mild racial slurs he said on the air. If we apply that same standard to Iranian.com, we would have to send at least 30-50 people straight to the firing squad.

It's a tragedy, but every single day on this site, people's religion, heritage, race, ethnic origin and self-identity are rediculed and insulted by cowards with fake names. Under any other circumstance these acts would be called racist or biggotted. But these Iranians are nothing but moral apologists.

Ben Madadi

The incredibly good side!

by Ben Madadi on

Look on youtube and you will find many REALLY SELF-MADE stars who have succeeded to attract HUGE HUGE crowds simply by talking to them using a webcam. This is one of the great sides of the Internet that it has also allowed removing barriers and merritocracy is much ever closer :)



by Bored Iranian dude (not verified) on

Ah.. Varjavand.. yet again you shove your silly persian nose into issues that hang way over your fat bald persian head. I laugh as the tip of my sharp ad hominem attack bleeds you, mohaaa mohaaa (the last part not to be confused with anything sexual)