Ari Siletz

Marjaneh

a)nor does it condone incitred of hatred

In the US peddeling hate speech is a full time job for radio and tv hosts. They include: Glenn Beck; Rush Limbaugh; and pretty much the whole staff of Fox News & good portion of Clear Channel. Far being from banned it is heavily promoted and subsidized. Obama is the main target with other targets including:

• Anyone with an education.
• Gays
• Liberals
• Intellectuals
• Socialists
• Communits (we don't have any of them).
• Seculars.
• Atheists.
• Muslims.

We are used to this stuff. It is a par of the course and price of freedom. We fight it with peaceful responses.

Draw Me!

How about a draw VPK contest? You can pay the proceeds to the VPK foundation. Or to my IRA account c/o JJ. I might even use the winner for my Avatar for a day.

Souri jaan

... I think what he is proposing is quite logical.

How would anyone feel when they encounter such a situation? Would you let it go in the name of Respecting that person's right to free speech or will you react? Would you let them toy with your family or a set of beliefs that are valuable to you or would you stand up to them?

Anvar

I don't see my post about Ahura. It is funny if it was removed since: it was neither disrespectful nor in any way critical of anyone including you!

Anvar

If we do what you suggest in the first paragraph, That is just giving up way too much and falling into the hands of Ill-wishers, Those who use their freedom of speech in order to Hurt intentioanlly. They will strike repeatedly if they are not stopped. Wouldn't you think so?

I mean, It is one thing to say, You respect their rights, but how do you really feel inside, if what they say has a direct and intimate impact on you? Should there be not some moral consideration infused in this process? Is that not what you are referring to when you speak about "setting our own limitations based personal conscience". Where does this conscience comes into play and generates an effective impact In order to not cause damage?

I think the logical way to deal with this situation, is to put them in a situation in an absolute non-violent manner. and give them a taste of their own medicine and tell them: i can do that too!

For the love of god, There are some out there who think Those who think mocking Any religious figure is no fair game, for the sake of exercising their freedom of speech, should not live in the modern society!!!

What could they possibly mean by that? does that not make you wonder what the intentions are behind that statement? 

*Darveesh* - I’d say: Go For It!

If you had read my earlier comments, you would have known that I believe people who draw these kinds of cartoons only demean themselves and not their subjects.

In your allergic reaction to me as a Baha’i, and your feeble attempt to provoke me, you have already managed to accomplish that without even drawing a line!

By all means - draw anything you’d like.  I’m not a hypocrite.  But do yourself a favor and learn the correct spelling of his name; unless, of course, the misspelling was intentional and a part of your sophisticated method of provocation.

Anvar

Darveesh

Drveesh,

Now I see that people are right about you being the same Ayhab character who was blocked many times but each time came back (ba por roee) to mess up with these pages and insulting everyone!
Although you had deleted your blog where everybody had stated that they have recognized you, but now you can be assured that you won't stay here for long, even with this new user-name!

Get a life man!
You are sick! Go see a doctor!

I say, at the spirit of freedom of speech lets draw Bahaolah

what do you say anvar?

Anvar, Yes, and so important!

What you typed:

"Popular speech that everyone likes does not need protection. 
Consequently, we must realize that at times we will hear or see stuff
that we may not like.  Still, we should respect the rights of the
speakers to spew venom, and reserve the right to say we don’t like the
poison."

It really is very important indeed, especially as we mostly live in "pseudo-democracies", in which soon, it won't even matter what we dislike, but what we do like won't matter either.

If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

Freedom of Speech hoolahoop

Freedom of Speech (including religious expression and otherwise) is a legal and consequently  moral obligation within a particular society that upholds that law.

That means, a respect for the Right of the Expression of an Individual's View . This does NOT condone the view

a)nor does it condone incitred of hatred

b)nor does it enforce the  obligatory respect of views and values

Seriously, as someone who loves most of Magritte's work, I could make a heavy, solid case of having taken offense,  against the defamation of Magritte's work (especially the idiotic interpretation of one aspect of its expressed intentions) via association of a prophet.

If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

Free speech covers a wide array

One reason I support free speech is that it protects the expression of unpopular ideas by minority groups.  We need to keep in mind that free speech is supposed to protect the speech that we might dislike, disagree with, or find offensive.  Popular speech that everyone likes does not need protection.  Consequently, we must realize that at times we will hear or see stuff that we may not like.  Still, we should respect the rights of the speakers to spew venom, and reserve the right to say we don’t like the poison.

In Iran, certain people have been relentlessly attacked for over a century, but never given the right to set the records straight.

*sag koochooloo* - I am in total agreement with you that misuse of Free Speech to insult serves no other purpose than to push buttons and create trouble.  However, this is not sufficient threshold for legal limitations on speech in a free society.  When it comes to the laws, we should allow for “unpopular” speech to be expressed.  However, within this large legal latitude, we should individually set our own limitations based on personal conscience, goals, or any other criteria.

*KouroshS* - I can relate to your concerns and frustrations.  Many a times, convincing a handful of individuals may indeed be futile.  I still think the most effective way is to keep a courteous line of communication open, as opposed to ‘retaliation in kind’.  There are plenty of intelligent readers who easily see through innuendos, baseless accusations, and empty slogans that is quite common on this site.  Have you noticed how many times I’ve had to repeat myself that I am FOR free speech?  So much that I even respect their right of accusing me of the opposite!

*VPK* - (Promotion) – I thought that Ahura typo was actually a message from God after the discussions you and I had on Zoroastrianism on a different blog the other day! LOL

Anvar

a question

would it be freedom of speech if someone were to suggest to draw cartoons of your families in less than decent position?

are you righteous righties going to defend that idea as you are defending this bloger?

I haven't read all the comments

and can only speak for myself in saying that I did not mean to be disrespectful to anyone (especially my good friend Sag koochooloo).  I was simply stating my opinion.  To be intolerant of others' views is anti-free speech also.

Anvar

Now comes the personal attacks and insults, see what i am talking about?:)

love is in the air in this site

Benross

I agree.  That could be said about any subject matter.  In my opinion, ANY public figure, religious or not, is fair game when it comes to criticism, ridicule and deconstruction.  The whole foundation of free speech revolves around people's right to say things without fearing retribution and a lynch mob.  People who value religion, any religion, over free speech need to get over themselves.  There is no place for them in a modern society. 

Anahid Jan

I made it clear I know all those oppose to the cartoons are not Islamist. But in my opinions they *are* all opposed to freedom of speech. However you slice it or dice it they are opposed to a peaceful expression. No way to get around it.

Don't desert the main battlefield

It is something to write constructively about how religion and ideologies can be improved, but to just depict prophets in an insulting manner with  sole objective to provoke is, in my opnion, misuse of Free Speech to insult.

You are right. And this can be said about almost any subject matter. What makes it so different on this one?

I picked the pipe as my favourite cartoon. Now you tell me how it is insulting and more importantly, why?

Anvar

Indeed i think your intentions are quite Noble.

I totally understand where you are coming from. Of course I realize which option you would pick, but the point i am trying to make is  just what you pointed out in your previous post (retaliation in Kind). It is one thing to have the upper hand and be in a position to end this cycle, However, It really is unfair when even at a slightest hint of a protest, one is being invited to challenge their beliefs. as you witnessed here, The screams of "killers", "islamists" "in favor of restricting free speech" were at their peak among the comments. Should one remain silent against all these accusations? 

i wish one of these fellas could tell me with clear and transparent logic, without mixing and handpicking the issues and  coming up with false conclusions how is this restricting speech when one has already demonstrated what one already thinks about This particular religion or Ideaology?

I agree Anvar, Free Speech is very precious but

"free speech, in a civil society, must be regulated. ...The challenge is to determine where those lines should be drawn....If you make people understand that insulting cartoons only demean the artists, and not their subjects, then they’ll eventually change their behavior.  "

It is something to write constructively about how religion and ideologies can be improved, but to just depict prophets in an insulting manner with  sole objective to provoke is, in my opnion, misuse of Free Speech to insult. It serves no other purpose than to push buttons and create trouble.  

*KouroshS*

No apology’s needed for the name.  I’ve been called worse names ;-)  It’s just that at first I almost didn’t realize it was addressed to me.

I hope you don’t think I’m under the illusion that I’m giving you answers.  You end your comments to me with good questions.  So do not think of my replies as answers.  I’m just telling you what I would do – not what you should do.

You asked: “What if keeps on happening?”

Then you’d be in a unique and fantastic opportunity to end this viscous cycle!  To me, it goes beyond just personal fulfillment.  It is also consistent with my goal of increasing love and unity amongst people.  

You may not like it if I say that it may take a very long time to see any results.  Imagine you have a choice between two alternatives.  One choice can possibly perpetuate this vicious cycle for generations to come.  The other choice can possibly end this mutual animosity in two or three generations. How cool would that be? I think you can guess which my choice is.  

If you make people understand that insulting cartoons only demean the artists, and not their subjects, then they’ll eventually change their behavior.  That will take time and a new way of thinking on your (my) part.

Anvar

Muhammad's teachings and practices alive and kicking in Afghan..

In this video, Muhammad (the older guy) teaches Ali (the younger guy) how to become an arooss (bride). May one day Muhammad will be eradicated from the cultures, minds, and practices of the people in the middle east!
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsUdgNpcj14

Benross

Stop Kidding yourself.

It is not Effectively in force, But it may still be out there just because they can not revoke it. There really is no consensus over it, so it would be real Looney to think that there is someone out there who is still thinking about executing it.

Now if that is what you think, speaks volumes as well.

Ciao Amigo.

Disgusting

To Draw someone who promotes the greater good in a poor way,however it is part of having a free society and many religions have been the victim of religious bigotry.Just check this site..

Anvar jan

I meant to appologize to you for that. Sorry.

No anvar, I by no means were shooting for a violent revenge. Just the excercizing the same right, namely Mocking what is Holy and precious to them.

That would be all right though. You can not leave so many insults unanswered just because you would not want to bring yourself down to their level. What if keeps on happening?

*KouroshS* - Revenge may not make life more fair

First of all, thank you for the promotion: (Anvar>>>Ahura) What an honor!

You asked where was the fairness for not being able to return the sentiment with intensity to those who offend your sacred beliefs. (paraphrased you).

If by that you mean resorting to mayhem or violence, my simplest answer would be that drawing cartoons in the West, even those you might personally find despicable and insulting, is legal but violence against people or property is not.  

If by that you mean to retaliate in kind, by trying to insult them back through speech, then that would certainly be your right.  At the end of the day, you’ll have to decide for yourself whether or not you find revenge and lowering yourself to their level fulfilling.

That’s why I went from legal to ethical considerations.  The society draws legal boundaries for us but we establish our own ethics.

Anvar

Thank you for your

Thank you for your correction. That speaks volumes.

Benross

Correction: 

The death sentenced WAS issued and WAS retracted Years ago. It is not in effect anymore.

At least Try and get your facts straight before Firing your Toopkhooneh.

.

-