[DEBATE] : Re: Itchy vs Scratchy

[mfleshman at aol.com]

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 
somebody?

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 
(sic)!

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."


-----Original Message-----
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 
DELIBERATE
provocation, whatever our personal beliefs or otherwise in religion - 
the
context within
which religion exists is relevant, but that most difficult of legal 
analyses,
that of intent,
refers...

It is clear that the Danes involved INTENDED to upset Muslim people.... 
surely,
that is
clearly hate speech?

I assume you saw the analysis I forwarded with supporting info?

Muna

>