[DEBATE] : Re: Itchy vs Scratchy
mfleshman at aol.com
mfleshman at aol.com
Wed Feb 22 20:16:58 GMT 2006
The willingness, even eagerness, of progressives to censor expression
and speech is indeed distressing.
Would you ban all forms of expression you deem deliberately
provocative, Muna? Is deliberately provoking anyone out of bounds, or
just Muslims? The anti-globalization movement, or at least big,
creative sections of it, prides itself on being deliberately
provocative. Shall we silence them in fear that they might (gasp) upset
If we used Muna's alarmingly broad defintion of hate speech (Do those
cartoons really rise to the level of "hate speech?") I would have to
delete many images on my hard drive of Jesus Christ, one of my personal
favorite targets of mockery and ridicule, lest I offend radical
anti-choice Catholics, or murderous Baptist homophobes. God forbid
We'd certainly have to ban all of Lenny Bruce's recorded works, burn
the writings of Abbie Hoffman and all recordings of Richard Pryor's
stand-up comedy routines. Old Martin Luther deliberately provoked the
Vatican (and also vandalized that church door) with his theses. Should
the Reformation be expunged from the history books? If deliberate
provocation is the standard for censorship the bonfires of the
intolerant will burn long into the night.
As I read about the 11 Muslim journalists jailed for daring to reprint
some of the cartoons or to argue against the mob it strike me that many
of the Western calls for censorship are ultimately patronizing. There
is a strong element of "You mustn't provoke the Muslims. They're really
not <quite> as civilized and sophisticated as we are and you mustn't
provoke them lest they do something crazy" in much of it, I think.
You may condemn them, Muna. I say "Free the Cartoon 11."
From: muna at iafrica.com
To: debate at lists.kabissa.org
Sent: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:36:27 +0200
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Itchy vs Scratchy
>From where I sit, there seems to be little said about this being a
provocation, whatever our personal beliefs or otherwise in religion -
which religion exists is relevant, but that most difficult of legal
that of intent,
It is clear that the Danes involved INTENDED to upset Muslim people....
clearly hate speech?
I assume you saw the analysis I forwarded with supporting info?
More information about the Debate-list