anti islam cartoons required

[Dudley]

Idiot.

[El Spurioso]

Freedom of speech: brilliant.  Poking fun at religions as a valid way of making people look at things in a different way: brilliant (though be prepared to be poked right back).  Satire: brilliant.


Going out of your way to insult every member of a major religion by breaking one of their principal tenets (that the Prophet shall not be represented visually, ever), further doing-so in a supposedly comedic way whilst representing said Prophet with a bomb instead of a turban, doing so in the full and certain knowledge that your action Will Have Repurcussions, and then publishing said insult several times in large-circulation newspapers:  About as fucking stupid and hateful as it's possible to get.


Let's stop using "freedom of speech" as an excuse for acting like wankers, shall we?



(P.S:  Protesting against a hateful religious insult by drawing attention to its stupidity and aforementioned hatefulness: brilliant.  Firebombing embassies and dressing-up as suicide-bombers: Missing The Point Somewhat)

[SamuelAWilkinson]

Just because your mouth is free to say what it likes doesn't mean your brain is excused from stopping it.

[El Spurioso]

Yeah, what he said.  

Which, er, took up about 1/1th of the space of what I said, and still did it better.


Er.

[Dudley]

1/1th???

I suppose you don't need maths to be a writer...

[El Spurioso]

Oh, piss it.

Which gimble-faced fuckoid included the "insert" key on the keyboard anyway, just out of interest?  And right next to the delete key?  I've got some Freedom-of-Speech for Him, ohoyesbycrikey.


1/100th, for the record.

Muttergrumblepissflaps.

[Thursday]

There's a world of difference between saying something that some people will take offence at and deliberately offending someone just for the sake of it.  

If someone were to point out that religions tend to be twaddle - actually, that's been done, lets have a new example.  If you wanted to argue that astrophysics is a load of cobblers, perhaps citing dark matter as an example of utterly made up tosh with no concrete evidence, then that would be entirely reasonable.  Some physicists would undoubtably be offended at your accusations, but you'd be entirely within your rights to make them.  Huzzah for the freedom of speech.

However, making a statement with the sole purpose of insulting physicists would be rather different.  Personally I think you should still have the right to make such a statement, because freedom of speech is a fantastic thing and shouldn't be monkeyed with lightly.  There was a marvellous quote in the news pointing out that very few societies, having restricted the freedom of speech, ever regained it: "You can say what you like, except" is the start of the proverbial slippery slope.  I wouldn't want my freedom of speech to be curtailed just because a particular group took offence at something, but nor would I want to risk losing it just because some pillock insisted on using it to justify being insulting.

The crucial point is that although you do indeed have the right to say what you want, you also have an obligation to not be a complete twat.  You don't get the freedom to drive a car without having the responsibility not to plough through a row of pedestrians: same thing with speech.  If you want the freedom you have to live with the responsibility.  Where speech is concerned, though, it seems to be a lot easier to curb the freedom than to enforce the responsibility.

[longmanshort]

shame on you lms for not taking this opportunity for defending the freedom of the press !

I refuse to defend wankers who, like schoolyard bullies, punch someone and then run and hide behind teacher to avoid being hit in return.

Such actions will only end up damaging the freedom of the press. Already, the government is suggesting it should try again with the charge of 'glorifying acts of terrorism'.

Religion, as I'm always having to point out, is not the problem - it's the twats who use it as an excuse for not thinking.

Idiots, the lot of them. To be quite honest, they all deserve each other.

[Dudley]

Iranian paper calls for cartoons to satirise the Holocaust
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4688466.stm

The original offending cartoons.  Am I missing something?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

[judge dreddd]

I suppose your right,best to do nothing at all, just say 'tut tut' at the news and ignore it.

Bit like nazi germany in the 30s eh.

[GordonR]

"Bit like nazi germany in the 30s eh."

You mean you wanting to flypost London with cartoon images denegrating a religious minority?

Yes, you're right. It probably is.

[Al_Ewing]

OMG HE'S RIGHT get the nooses out OR IT'S NAZI GERMANY!!!!1!!!

2000AD - the place for informed debate.

[judge dreddd]

"You mean you wanting to flypost London with cartoon images denegrating a religious minority? " , no denegrating the new nazis

[Roger Godpleton]

Not much to say, aparty from the fact that dreddd has been in my killfile for yonks. He always smelt like "trouble".

[judge dreddd]

"OMG HE'S RIGHT get the nooses out OR IT'S NAZI GERMANY!!!!1!!!

2000AD - the place for informed debate."

ooo nooo,its all wrong, stop the presses, we should not be allowed to say anything, unless everyone agrees its ok !

its ok, i wont do anything at all, just keep shtuum, best move, i think, init

http://64.246.44.90/cartoons/Mohammed-drawings-newspaper1.jpg">