Tax dollars being spent to condemn free speech

[Quantum Windbag]

Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News

Why would the Administration be obligated to support or endorse the content of the movie? Or even remain neutral on its content?

Why would the administration be obligated to oppose or condemn the content of the movie?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You really are confused aren't you? Point out where I said that the official position of the government cannot be different from that of a private citizen. Can't do it, can you?

The simple truth is that the government has policy positions, and private citizens do not have to agree with those positions.There is nothing wrong with that, there is, however, something wrong with the government publicly airing the fact that private citizens disagree with it in foreign markets.

That isn't even what happened here. The constitution specifically prohibits the government from taking positions regarding religion. Yet, for some reason, assholes like you love the fact that the government is coddling a bunch of religious nuts.

By the way, the difference between rights and power is not a semantic issue. It is the foundation of our legal system and our government. In fact, it is the foundation of every government legal system on the planet. Your willingness to trash that simply for the convenience of your position is really sad.

Your posting style has always baffled me. We rarely agree, but I think you're a smart guy, and usually back up your arguments very well - then you consistently cancel that out with nonsensical ad hom attacks.

The interesting thing, we probably agree on more than you know. But you're a man of "principles", and I'm a realpolitik guy.

In terms of your post, you've got things flipped around - the government isn't "publicly airing the fact that private citizens disagree with it in foreign markets", they're publicly distancing themselves from the opinions of a private citizen.

The makers of "The Innocence of Muslims" aren't "disagreeing" with US foreign policy, they're mocking a religion - specifically, one with a lot of power in a really important region. This isn't about "free speech", it's about diplomacy. We don't live in a world of our own - we're a functioning part of a global civilization. Barring outright war with EVERYONE, there are times when the sensibilities of other world powers need to be taken into account. An empty gesture of a tv ad is a pretty harmless way to do it.

As I said, I wouldn't support ANY sort of legal retribution for the video, or laws that would prohibit ANY speech. But this isn't that.

I did not say they are publicly saying that a private citizen disagrees with the official policy of the US, did I?

It was actually a direct quote from your post. I even cut-and-paste it. I've highlighted it above.

Not sure how you misrepresenting what I said proves you are better at this than I am, but feel free to live in a world where you are always right if it helps you sleep at night.

I don't think I'm "better at this" than you, nor do I think that I'm always right.

But if it helps you sleep at night...

The US was founded on the principle that mocking a religion is acceptable.

No. The US was founded on the principle that it's not illegal to mock a religion.

There's a difference between "legal" and "acceptable". I happen to think that mocking anyone's religion is a rather rude thing to do, and not "acceptable" at all.

Believe it or not, it is actually impossible to have religious tolerance if religion is above critique. Anyone with the brains to understand freedom of religion understands that religions conflict with each other. The fundamentals of Islam conflict with the fundamentals of both Christianity and Judaism, and come into violent conflict with the beliefs of Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions that openly practice in the US. Satanism actually blasphemes against all of the three major religions, and would be impossible if we were actually the country Obama is portraying us to be.

I agree with most of you've posted, except the last line. What do you think that Obama is "portraying us to be"?

To sum it up, it doesn't matter if we live in a world that doesn't tolerate our views, our views are actually more enlightened than theirs. There is no reason for us to go backwards in order to live with them, they need to come forward and catch up with us.

Here's the thing - again, I agree with everything, except the last line. I don't think that making a hollow "denouncement" in a TV ad is "going backwards. Making laws against mocking Islam would be going backwards, but a PR campaign? Not so much.

By the way, I never said it was legal retribution. It is, however, a step backwards from the way the US has come to view freedom of speech over the last 200 years. I refuse to accept it, and I object to my government wanting to go backwards. I thought progressives were all about moving forward, when did that change?

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think that a PR campaign to make people less upset is the government "wanting" to go backwards - I think it's the government "wanting" to maintain diplomatic relations with a few billion other humans.

Simply put, I don't see how this is a big deal, in any way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News

Why would the Administration be obligated to support or endorse the content of the movie? Or even remain neutral on its content?

Why would the administration be obligated to oppose or condemn the content of the movie?

They're not.

You're claiming they've done something wrong by taking the position that they disagree with the content of the movie.

What have they done wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Human lives > "Principles".

I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.

Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.

Powers and rights are interchangeable words in many circumstances; this is one of them.

The power of the president, for example, to veto a bill, is the right of the president to veto a bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The United States has never believed that religious tolerance means that we cannot denigrate the beliefs of others.

The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film - YouTube

No one was prevented from denigrating Islam.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Human lives > "Principles".

I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.

Correct, the condemnation of the film by the Administration in no way constitutes a restriction on free speech nor does it preempt the distribution or viewing of the film.

The government and its officials are free to express their opinions.

The continued insistence by the right that officials condemning the film somehow manifests a First Amendment violation is tedious and ignorant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was actually a direct quote from your post. I even cut-and-paste it. I've highlighted it above.

I suggest you go back and quote the whole sentence, then you can come back and admit you were wrong.

I don't think I'm "better at this" than you, nor do I think that I'm always right.

You are the one that accused me of using ad hominens in the same post you used a different logical fallacy. Why do that if you don't think you are better than me?

But if it helps you sleep at night...

Don't need help sleeping, thanks.

No. The US was founded on the principle that it's not illegal to mock a religion.

Wrong again. The issue here is not legal versus illegal, if it were it would not be specifically spelled out in the constitution that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is the foundation of our country, not that it is not illegal to mock things.

There's a difference between "legal" and "acceptable". I happen to think that mocking anyone's religion is a rather rude thing to do, and not "acceptable" at all.

Jesus mocked the religion of the Philistines, I am pretty sure you are going to have a hard time arguing that was unacceptable. The entire Protestant Reformation was based on denigrating and mocking the Holy Roman Empire, go ahead and explain why Martin Luther was wrong to post his 95 Thesis on the door of the church, I won't hold my breath.

The part you do not understand is that religion exists to mock religion. That is why we have the 1st Amendment, to make it acceptable for all religions to mock other religions. If we don't allow religions to mock each other we are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I agree with most of you've posted, except the last line. What do you think that Obama is "portraying us to be"?

The same thing you are, a country were it is legal, but wrong, to denigrate other people's beliefs. Neither one of you know enough about religion to understand why his comment that we reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others is so wrong it is incomprehensible to intelligent people.

Here's the thing - again, I agree with everything, except the last line. I don't think that making a hollow "denouncement" in a TV ad is "going backwards. Making laws against mocking Islam would be going backwards, but a PR campaign? Not so much.

It is a PR campaign that completely misrepresents the history of the United States. Did we reject the concerted efforts of the Pentecostal Revival to denigrate churches that turned a blind eye to sin? Do we currently reject the effort of Muslims to denigrate the belief of Hindus who reject monotheism? Of course not, and any attempt to portray us as a country that rejects mocking, outright denigration, and even blasphemy, is wrong.

It it isn't, how do you explain that the US actually spends tax money on art that is considered sacrilegious?

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I don't think that a PR campaign to make people less upset is the government "wanting" to go backwards - I think it's the government "wanting" to maintain diplomatic relations with a few billion other humans.

Simply put, I don't see how this is a big deal, in any way.

Of course you don't, because you don't understand history.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would the Administration be obligated to support or endorse the content of the movie? Or even remain neutral on its content?

Why would the administration be obligated to oppose or condemn the content of the movie?

They're not.

You're claiming they've done something wrong by taking the position that they disagree with the content of the movie.

What have they done wrong.

No, I am saying they were wrong for taking a position at all. They would be just as wrong if they came out and said they support the content of the movie. It is not the government's job to take any position on religion.

Period.

End of story.

 

[Obamanation]

Why would the administration be obligated to oppose or condemn the content of the movie?

They're not.

You're claiming they've done something wrong by taking the position that they disagree with the content of the movie.

What have they done wrong.

No, I am saying they were wrong for taking a position at all. They would be just as wrong if they came out and said they support the content of the movie. It is not the government's job to take any position on religion.

Period.

End of story.

Exactly right! They should be protecting their consitutional right to free speech and explaining THAT to the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Human lives > "Principles".

I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.

Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.

Powers and rights are interchangeable words in many circumstances; this is one of them.

The power of the president, for example, to veto a bill, is the right of the president to veto a bill.

Rights and powers are only interchangeable if you have never studied constitutional law. Anyone that got through high school civics should understand that the government has the power to enforce laws, it does not have the right to do so. People have the right to stand on a street corner and yell that the world is going to end in fire because of the Mayan calendar, they do not have the power to do so if they are smaller than the guy that is annoyed with them.

The power of the president to veto a bill has nothing to do with rights, it is spelled out in the constitution, and basically amounts to nothing more than a refusal to sign the bill. He must then return the bill to the chamber in which it originated along with a statement containing his objections.

A signing statement is not a right either, so stuff that one up your ass.

After you fold it with a lot of sharp corners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The United States has never believed that religious tolerance means that we cannot denigrate the beliefs of others.

The Anti-Anti-Islam Film TV Ad By US in Pakistan Repudiating Film - YouTube

No one was prevented from denigrating Islam.

Damn, for once you agree with me. I guess that adage about broken clocks is right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Human lives > "Principles".

I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.

Correct, the condemnation of the film by the Administration in no way constitutes a restriction on free speech nor does it preempt the distribution or viewing of the film.

The government and its officials are free to express their opinions.

The continued insistence by the right that officials condemning the film somehow manifests a First Amendment violation is tedious and ignorant.

The idiot speaketh.

 

[Plasmaball]

Human lives > "Principles".

I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.

Correct, the condemnation of the film by the Administration in no way constitutes a restriction on free speech nor does it preempt the distribution or viewing of the film.
!
The government and its officials are free to express their opinions.

The continued insistence by the right that officials condemning the film somehow manifests a First Amendment violation is tedious and ignorant.

The idiot speaketh.

We know,you made this thread.
The government according to you should remain neutral. That's not going to happen nor should it happen. This dumbass expressed his freedom of speech,which has put people in harms way, and now we have to say hey this guy doesn't represent all of us.

But hey we can also do nothing and let them assume things and go ahead and try to kill us.

Another backwards thread by the windbag

 

[Shelzin]

Correct, the condemnation of the film by the Administration in no way constitutes a restriction on free speech nor does it preempt the distribution or viewing of the film.
!
The government and its officials are free to express their opinions.

The continued insistence by the right that officials condemning the film somehow manifests a First Amendment violation is tedious and ignorant.

The idiot speaketh.

We know,you made this thread.
The government according to you should remain neutral. That's not going to happen nor should it happen. This dumbass expressed his freedom of speech,which has put people in harms way, and now we have to say hey this guy doesn't represent all of us.

But hey we can also do nothing and let them assume things and go ahead and try to kill us.

Another backwards thread by the windbag

Actually I believe that is one of the primary reasons why populations support wars. They don't have freedom of the press. They believe what their government says, because there are no other options.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News

What a stupid argument. No American representative is condemning free speech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Correct, the condemnation of the film by the Administration in no way constitutes a restriction on free speech nor does it preempt the distribution or viewing of the film.
!
The government and its officials are free to express their opinions.

The continued insistence by the right that officials condemning the film somehow manifests a First Amendment violation is tedious and ignorant.

The idiot speaketh.

We know,you made this thread.
The government according to you should remain neutral. That's not going to happen nor should it happen. This dumbass expressed his freedom of speech,which has put people in harms way, and now we have to say hey this guy doesn't represent all of us.

But hey we can also do nothing and let them assume things and go ahead and try to kill us.

Another backwards thread by the windbag

You don't think the government should not take sides in a discussion about religion? Can I ask you WHY THE FUCK NOT? how does taking sides in a discussion about religion fit into the 1st Amendment? Did the government condemn Piss Christ? What makes Islam so special that it needs the protection from people that mock it? Does your brain actually work, or do you just use it to keep your ears from flapping together in the wind?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Marked by the U.S. Embassy seal, advertisements condemning an anti-Islam video appeared on Pakistani television on Thursday in an apparent attempt to undercut anger against the United States, where the film was produced. Hundreds of youths, however, clashed with security officials as they tried in vain to reach the embassy in Islamabad amid anger in many countries over the film's vulgar depiction of the Prophet Muhammad.The advertisements appear to be an effort by the U.S. government to dampen chaos surrounding the film and undo some of the damage to America's image in the Muslim world. Violence linked to the movie has left at least 30 people in seven countries dead, including the American ambassador to Libya. Two people have died in protests in Pakistan.
In recent days, the decision by a French satirical magazine to release cartoons crudely depicting the prophet has added to the tension, as may the upcoming issue of the German satirical magazine Titanic. The magazine's co-editor Martin Sonneborn said it was up to readers to decide whether the cover of an Arab wielding a sword actually depicts the Prophet Muhammad.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News

What a stupid argument. No American representative is condemning free speech.

Can we bet on that?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Gotta love a government that stands up for principles.

Pakistan: anti-film ads feature Obama, Clinton - Yahoo! News

What a stupid argument. No American representative is condemning free speech.

Can we bet on that?

No. It is too stupid.

You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a stupid argument. No American representative is condemning free speech.

Can we bet on that?

No. It is too stupid.

You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.

No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.

You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.

 

[Shelzin]

Can we bet on that?

No. It is too stupid.

You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.

No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.

You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.

I don't believe that to be true.