Ultimatum to US: ‘Criminalise blasphemy or lose consulate’

[Carol]

So where are the muslims who want to go out and make a positive image for themselves and their people. How about an Imam record one of their sermons one day teaching peace and upload that, I bet it'll be a hit. What happened to the rational ones who would make a video, write an article, do something of the sort? In the age of the internet we don't need news outlets to make a statement. If the news is not giving them an outlet how come they can't post a few videos on youtube? How many times has a video started trending then become a world wide phenomenon, like the last lecture. Where's their positive statement? Where's their outreach to help make the world as a whole a better place.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugex...qf.&fp=cbcf3e5d8bf8da4a&biw=1366&bih=667&bs=1

 

[Tez3]

Err, okay ... I don't see why that could be thought to be relevant?

For clarity's sake, I'll just reiterate that it's Salman Rushdie talking about his experiences with the fatwah rather than Andrew Marr talking about his legal right to curtail salacious gossip.

The nature and nurturing of the freedom of thought as well as speech is rather a different kettle of fish to scandal mongering. Just ask a certain French photographer and magazine .

It's got a lot to do with free speech actually, was it salacious gossip or was the fact he thought he could talk about politicaians affairs as being in the public domain but not his? The idea of super injunctions where you aren't even allowed to mention a peson name is an insidious breach of free speech in this country and is in fact the thin edge of the wedge. These super injunctions are being used to hide from the public not just what politicians and 'celebrities' are up to but quite a bit of what the government is up to and that does concern us. If you don't know about a lot of things the government is doing, look to the super injunctions.

 

[Sukerkin]

Ah I see. I think we were talking about slightly different things, Tez. I see and appreciate that you wanted to raise the issue of free speach in general rather than the rise of self censorship, especially when it comes to speaking about the more extreme religions in the world .

 

[Instructor]

As a Christian I also hate blasphemy. I've walked out of movies before because the language got to be more than I cared to allow. However, as an American I love freedom and the right to pretty much say or do what you want so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

If movies offend you, don't watch them. In our country the most powerful thing you can do is vote with your wallet.

 

[WC_lun]

Instructor, I appreciate what you are saying, but I think the key phrase in your post is "In our country."

 

[Big Don]

Instructor, I appreciate what you are saying, but I think the key phrase in your post is "In our country."

Then you woefully missed the point.

If movies offend you, don't watch them.

If you don't like something, by all means avoid it. It's called being an adult.

 

[arnisador]

Surely anyone making a 'criminalize blasphemy' demand would know the demand would never be met and would be using it just to fan the fires.

 

[WC_lun]

Then you woefully missed the point.
If you don't like something, by all means avoid it. It's called being an adult.

I think you woefully miss my point. No worries, I'll try to make it simpler for you. The idiots causing the violence and upheaval haven't seen the movie. They are reacting to much more than the movie, some of it real and some of it not. Thier wallet has NOTHING to do with thier actions. Thier spending or not would not effect what is going on at all because it isn't about paying to support or not support a movie. Instructor's second sentence is moot and does not apply in this circumstance.