I posted the same thing in Politics the other day. But here is a new article on the subject.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1207238156264

Cliff Notes:
Last Friday the UN's Human Rights Council took a direct swipe at freedom of expression. In a 32-0 vote, the council instructed its "expert on freedom of expression" to report to the council on all instances in which individuals "abuse" their freedom of speech by giving expression to racial or religious bias.

Additional Links:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ts-Council.php

http://richarddawkins.net/article,24...-Ethical-Union


So, why is it that the Islamic Nations are so afraid of free speech? Why is the majority of the world so willing to go along with Islam restricting Free Speech?

Else they get angry.

And an angry Muslim is only a few steps away from an extremist.

We'd rather take the symbolical hit on Free Speech, than to offend the Muslims and face the dire consequences.

Muslims or Christians saying Free Speech ends with critique on their religion makes me irrately angry to the point of hoping the Church of Satan would urge Christians or Muslims to stop talking about their Gods because it offends them.

Yeah, I got mugged today.

Free to express our ideas...

Just as long as they don't contradict the ideas of others, or offend anyone, or seem prejudiced.

"I don't agree with what you're saying, so I'll fight to death against your right to say it."

Oh wait, I think it wasn't quite like this :P

Personally I think so-called "hate crime" laws are always a bad idea, since they are so easily abused. The reason for that is they involve some determining body to get into the accused's head and make a claim both as to his specific thoughts, and then further state that those thoughts are unacceptable. Well they certainly might be ugly but the idea that thought can be somehow disallowed or policed is even more noxious to me both in intent and in the necessary consequences.

Now the US has many locally-passed laws of a similar nature, and some other places have even stricter versions (Germany for example) so why then do you again only focus on the muslims when they're just following the example laid by the (in this case misguided) West?

It's just like you can't seem to comprehend how extreme and mad Bush's invasion of Iraq was...by definition you think your the good guys, in all cases.

Them some big blinders.

What speech is outlawed in the US?

They aren't blinders, I just don't agree with you in regards to Iraq.

When compared to the Muslim nations, we are always the good guys.

And I focused on the Muslims in this case because they are the worst offenders of this sort of thing in the world. Not to mention how laughable it is that Egypt and Pakistan are even on a Human Rights commission.

Freedom of expression isn't something you can grant, it's only something you can take away. And obviously when they do that they will try to do it under the flag of freedom (standard doublethink).

No, not rly. You may want to start a new OP about that if you're willing to take it on.

No point in starting a thread it's just an opinion. Others will disagree and I don't really care to discuss. I am sure it's just a combination of rabid nationalism, my beliefs about the Muslim religion, and the continued threats that the Muslim religion poses to the "West"

You're not just stating these things as an opinion, which is why I suggest you start a new thread.

There are various laws regarding "hate crimes" in the US which will augment time served for say an act of violence (say 5 extra years because of the "hate" aspect, as opposed to just beating the **** out of some poor soul just because you like his watch apparently. For the reasons I gave these sorts of distinctions are problematic).

Now regarding the west always being the good guys...again, you don't seem to recognize the "own-goal" nature of many of our problems today, not to mention the grossly immoral nature of some of our responses. It is, even among some mainstreme rightist sources, acceptable to argue that the sovreign country of Iraq should be turned into a hunting ground for people the US deems "need killing"...with all the horrible consequences for the innocent millions of Iraqis living there (and it has been a horrorshow...mass slaughter, ancient rivalries ripped open like some kind of weird psycho-social atomic fission, ten per cent of the populace turned into refugees...). This is considered right and just conduct by so-called "Christians".

It's also incredibly ironic, since much of today's religious fuel and fervor can be traced to the fact that in the past that was the only outlet allowed by more secular, brutal regimes (also stamped with western approval). Or perhaps you are one of these fellows who thinks it was a good idea to arm and encourage muslim nutcases in Afghanistan, give them millions in arms and training. Or if you prefer overthow secular democracies like the one that existed Iran in the 50s and replace it with a dictatorship of our liking (directly resulting in that wonderful fellow Ayatolah Khomeni and resultant later idiots). These were things done by the powerful west to muslim nations, don't see how they make you proud or "the good guys". 9/11 pales in comparison to any of them.

That isn't restricting free speech, it is imposing an additional penalty on a person who is already committing a crime. The person is free to say as much hateful stuff as they want. Once they commit an actual crime, then the circumstances of that crime are used to determine the appropriate punishment.

No, it's probably just the bolded part. And a good dose of propaganda of course.

LOL propaganda, you mean, like 9/11, 4/4, 7/7, or myriad of other terrorist attacks by people whose express goal is the end of Western Civilization and who validate everything they do with verses from the Koran?

Or propaganda like the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the death threats to Salmon Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Perhaps the imam basically stating women are at fault if raped,or the taking over of a meditation room at a Minnesota College. The honor killings in Texas, Canada, Denmark, and every other country with a large Muslim population?

Propaganda like death for Apostates or restrictions of free speech?

Propaganda like violence and threats of violence over cartoons, teddy bears, book, and films?

Propaganda indeed. Maybe if European countries had more nationalists they wouldn't be turning into Eurabia within 2 or 3 generations.

FYP.

"Well, Billy-Bob has to go away for life. I heard him talking about black people in an awfully impolite way. But Jimmy Jones, he's no trouble! He's not racist or anything, just a psychopath. Let's give him a reduced sentence."

Nobody is defending the Muslims here.

You haven't provided anything to indicate that the US government is any better, and that is the crux of the issue.

The UN thing is horrible, but to be expected in these polarizing times. And the UN has been losing momentum for a long time now, because someone *cough* don't heed its resolutions or pay their membership fees.

But on the subject of freedom of speech and hatecrimes, there is a crux to the matter...

Am I free to paint '100,000$ dollars to anyone that kills Madnak' (well, with name and address I guess) on a bunch of roadsigns? Should I only be punished the moment somebody actually takes them up on their word, and untill then they're just my expression?

It's an extreme example, but expression can reach a point where it comes into conflict with other rights, in my country I believe this is what is usually deemed 'hate propaganda', and similarily a 'hate crime' is one that is feared could become an example to be followed.

(And before C-Dog responds to my post with great fervor - this post isn't about muslims, so chill).

I don't think it's that bad from a practical point of view.

To be honest I don't care too much about intellectual jerks who in the name of free speech keep spreading their hate towards some kind of religion, it does not matter to me which religion, Muslims, Christians, Jews.
I also despise the double standard of some Christians when they "defend" free speech when the religion attacked is Muslim but can't take any hate when somebody attacks Jesus their Lord.

@Tame_Deuces
You crack me up. I see your point, but there is a difference in what you are saying and what they are trying to restrict. "I will pay you kill X" is different from "Mohammed was an epileptic warlord". The first directs people to an action, the second is just an observation.

@Sirio
I agree with you about the Christians. I think all religions should be up for "attack" on their ideologies.
I disagree with how bad the resolution is. It sets a dangerous precedent I think. And it directly contradicts the UNs own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Man, if it's worth that much to you I'll do it myself.

But yeah, I don't believe in 100% free speech. I do think it almost always has to be a judgment call, which is unfortunate. I mean, Cartman should so be in jail for that Tenorman thing.

But this is obviously ****. Those speaking out against crimes are being silenced in order to appease those who are threatening violence. The opposite of a justified speech restriction.

I certainly agree to that, just so that is clear.

Wait, what? I don't deserve to have rights because you don't like my opinions? Well, at least you're honest.

But you do realize this could apply in other cases. I mean, the relevant situation is a professor explaining how Mohammad had epileptic fits and led wars. You want opinions like mine silenced, that's scary but okay (I do live in the US so I won't be carted off to jail for my SMP history any time soon). But wanting statements of historical fact silenced because they might offend people doesn't strike you as the teensiest miscarriage of justice?

If you read my post, I think I made that clear, but the discussion strayed into a discussion on freedom of expression in general, one of my pet subjects, and that was what I commented on.

If you think for one second I in any way support the restriction of free speech in/towards China and the middle-east theocracies, I have to say I'm almost insulted.

I don't think that. I like your discussions usually.

"Killing a man is murder, unless it is done to the sound of trumpets."

He won't cop to the religious thing, but he will to rabid nationalism. In most USA-style cases the two go together but there's always that 4 standard deviation guy. Anyway no comment from C-Dog so I guess it's okay for christians to overthrow democratic muslim governments, turn their countries into free fire zones, and generally treat them like animals in a zoo or packing plant. When a proportionally small rump of nutcases respond in some relatively small degree, it's The End of Civilization. That'll play on Limbaugh and Drudge but most of the rest of the world sees how hypocritical it all is.