Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread

[bigb]

So is it your view that people (society in general) should avoid any degrading depiction of Christ so as to avoid offending believing Christians? Or does this expectation (if any exists)apply on a more limited basis to those social circles to which you belong?

I believe all people should seek to love and respect one another regardless of anything else.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Let me ask you this: do you think it's okay for someone to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred?

I think one has an absolute right to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred. Whether it is ok depends on context. In a community such as this, no (with possible exceptions). Outside of such micro-communities, family groups, etc. which depend on tight social cohesion to function, it's fair game. (But critique of religious beliefs, done reasonably and without intention to belittle, are perfectly ok. Although again, many believers take any critique of their beliefs as belittling.) For example, if a comedien were to include routines that degraded/mocked/or denigrated sacred religious beliefs, I have no problem at all with it. George Carlin's riffs on the absurdity of religious beliefs are some of the funniest and most trenchant critiques of religious belief I've ever heard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE)

Now your turn to answer my question.

 

[LogGrad98]

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. What they don't have is freedom from consequences for that speech.

 

[franklin]

We believe that it is offensive and a sin to try to depict all prophets (not only Muhammed) and give the images sacred meanings. For example when praying you cannot have an image in front if you to remember this rule. Because you know, Islam came down to a society of paganism so statues and concrete God symbols were pretty much the enemy of true belief. It wanted to destroy the entire 'people worshipping statues' thing and lead them to one true God that all religions were actually in the seekage of.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz

Mormons take a very similar position towards The Cross as a symbol that distracts from the true message.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I believe all people should seek to love and respect one another regardless of anything else.

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.

Everyone has a right to freedom of speech. What they don't have is freedom from consequences for that speech.

That is exceedingly dangerous and not really all that close to accurate.

 

[LogGrad98]

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.



That is exceedingly dangerous and not really all that close to accurate.

How is it not accurate, and how do you define speech?

You can do whatever you want but there are both imposed and natural consequences especially within complex societies. It goes back to the whole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" aspect. Because well sure you can but you can also be arrested for the ensuing chaos.

 

[Siro]

How is it not accurate, and how do you define speech?

You can do whatever you want but there are both imposed and natural consequences especially within complex societies. It goes back to the whole "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" aspect. Because well sure you can but you can also be arrested for the ensuing chaos.

lol. No. Yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech. Making fun of religious clothing is. There are no legal consequences to free speech. Social consequences are irrelevant to the discussion, as free speech is a legal matter.

 

[bigb]

I find proselytizing to be everything against this statement, here, yet people do it anyway.

Please explain that, because I disagree.

 

[bigb]

So is it your view that people (society in general) should avoid any degrading depiction of Christ so as to avoid offending believing Christians? Or does this expectation (if any exists)apply on a more limited basis to those social circles to which you belong?

I think one has an absolute right to degrade/mock/denigrate something another person holds as sacred. Whether it is ok depends on context. In a community such as this, no (with possible exceptions). Outside of such micro-communities, family groups, etc. which depend on tight social cohesion to function, it's fair game. (But critique of religious beliefs, done reasonably and without intention to belittle, are perfectly ok. Although again, many believers take any critique of their beliefs as belittling.) For example, if a comedien were to include routines that degraded/mocked/or denigrated sacred religious beliefs, I have no problem at all with it. George Carlin's riffs on the absurdity of religious beliefs are some of the funniest and most trenchant critiques of religious belief I've ever heard (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE)

Now your turn to answer my question.

I'm assuming this is the question you were referring to?

I think society in general should try to avoid belittling/mocking/ridiculing/offending/what ever you want to call it ANY sacred image/item of ANY religion. There is always a little light hearted joking that goes on between friends and stuff. I don't think that is the same thing as openly mocking and belittling.
Yes, we have our right to free speech. But just because you can be a dick doesn't mean you should be a dick.

 

[LogGrad98]

lol. No. Yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech. Making fun of religious clothing is. There are no legal consequences to free speech. Social consequences are irrelevant to the discussion, as free speech is a legal matter.

That's one way to limit the view of the subject. It's arbitrary and doesn't reflect reality but whatever.

 

[The Midnight]

I'm assuming this is the question you were referring to?

I think society in general should try to avoid belittling/mocking/ridiculing/offending/what ever you want to call it ANY sacred image/item of ANY religion. There is always a little light hearted joking that goes on between friends and stuff. I don't think that is the same thing as openly mocking and belittling.
Yes, we have our right to free speech. But just because you can be a dick doesn't mean you should be a dick.

I wonder if 'hate speech' is protected under the First Amendment?


Hate speech is defined as: Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation.

 

[Siro]

That's one way to limit the view of the subject. It's arbitrary and doesn't reflect reality but whatever.

Actually what you said was unrelated to free speech, and it shows your usual lack of understanding. I'm sorry I even responded.

 

[Siro]

Now that I've added Log to the list of people I don't respond to (with Hack, Boris, and Dutch), I wanted to clarify to everyone else that you have no freedom of speech here. We have community guidelines and mods who decide what is acceptable.

The first amendment defines the limits on the authority of the government to regulate individual views. Has nothing to do with the right to speak your mind or the consequences thereof.

 

[The Midnight]

Now that I've added Log to the list of people I don't respond to (with Hack, Boris, and Dutch), I wanted to clarify to everyone else that you have no freedom of speech here. We have community guidelines and mods who decide what is acceptable.

The first amendment defines the limits on the authority of the government to regulate individual views. Has nothing to do with the right to speak your mind or the consequences thereof.

Is hate speech protected under the first amendment? I tried to google it but couldn't find a definitive answer.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Is hate speech protected under the first amendment? I tried to google it but couldn't find a definitive answer.

Yes.
The issue most people have is with defining it.

 

[LogGrad98]

Actually what you said was unrelated to free speech, and it shows your usual lack of understanding. I'm sorry I even responded.

Lol pretty narrow minded viewpoint. I also stated earlier in the thread that Colton as the owner had every right to take down any image he wants. Also at no point was anyone talking about the constitutional ramifications of free speech. Probably better if you don't interact when thought is required.

 

[LogGrad98]

Yes.
The issue most people have is with defining it.

This. That is exactly why free speech cases appear before the supreme court fairly frequently.

 

[Boris]

lol. No. Yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech. Making fun of religious clothing is. There are no legal consequences to free speech. Social consequences are irrelevant to the discussion, as free speech is a legal matter.

Huh? News to me cause I just googled an apparently exmormon.com has links to sites that sell Mormon garments. Pretty disgusting fetish to me to ridicule a religion in that angry sort of fashion.

Now that I've added Log to the list of people I don't respond to (with Hack, Boris, and Dutch), I wanted to clarify to everyone else that you have no freedom of speech here. We have community guidelines and mods who decide what is acceptable.

The first amendment defines the limits on the authority of the government to regulate individual views. Has nothing to do with the right to speak your mind or the consequences thereof.

What is this jumbled angry post trying to say? That Log is on par with hack Boris an Dutch? Bitch please. Address the issue not your butthurtedness.

Actually what you said was unrelated to free speech, and it shows your usual lack of understanding. I'm sorry I even responded.

I am not even touching this one.

 

[Siro]

Is hate speech protected under the first amendment? I tried to google it but couldn't find a definitive answer.

Yes. Hate speech is protected unless it leads to imminent danger. So for a radio host to say "I encourage my listeners to go out and kill any Muslim they see", that wouldn't be protected speech. If he said "Muslims are violent and shouldn't be allowed to enter the country", then that's fine.

 

[The Midnight]

Yes. Hate speech is protected unless it leads to imminent danger. So for a radio host to say "I encourage my listeners to go out and kill any Muslim they see", that wouldn't be protected speech. If he said "Muslims are violent and shouldn't be allowed to enter the country", then that's fine.

Well, how about 'mocking' which is what Jimmy Eat Jazz said was OK?



Mocking can lead to hatred, anger, discrimination, uprising and potential 'danger' as well, no?