Freedom Of Speech, When Is It Going To Far?

[The Negotiator]

I was reading in another thread about a Danish newspaper that made some extremely insulting cartoons of the holy Prophet Muhammed, I as a Muslim find this compeletly unacceptable, Others believe that one should be able to say whatever they want regardless of the offense it causes.

So lets just say for instance I was to say "I hate Niggers!" Is that freedom of speech? In my view its complete racism not freedom of speech! However the liberals seem to think that saying such things are acceptable and bashing anything and everything in the name of freedom of speech is fine.

In my view freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech when you begin to insult someone or thier feelings, There is so much hipocrisy on the part of western nations when it comes to 'freedom of speech', Take UK where I live for example, It is a crime to give sermons on Fridays after Juma prayers that seem to promote extremist views, What happened to 'freedom of speech' there? So you see whilst these western nations are beating thier chests and using 'freedom of speech' as a ruse to insult and upset our religious or racial feelings they are at the same time simultaneously putting down all 'freedom of speech' that attacks or contrasts with thier views,

When all is said and done, There is no real 'freedom of speech' only 'freedom of speech' to attack concepts or religions/races that are alien to them, Using 'freedom of speech' to attack thier native religion/race or values is seen as incitement or extremism.

I know what you folks are going to say; "If you dont like it, Leave". But that still doesnt answer the double standards or the hypocrisy that exists in western society does it? Its very much like America claiming to be a beacon of light and freedom for te world, nevermind the fact that blacks were enslaved for 400 years, the native people were exterminated or the fact that until only recently blacks and others were not even allowed to walk on the same streets as whites, Then if an African american was to complain about the hypocrisy, A WASP would reply: "Go back to Africa! If you dont Like it".

Yeah thats gonna work!

[Reffo]

In my view freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech when you begin to insult someone or thier feelings, There is so much hipocrisy on the part of western nations when it comes to 'freedom of speech', Take UK where I live for example, It is a crime to give sermons on Fridays after Juma prayers that seem to promote extremist views, What happened to 'freedom of speech' there? So you see whilst these western nations are beating thier chests and using 'freedom of speech' as a ruse to insult and upset our religious or racial feelings they are at the same time simultaneously putting down all 'freedom of speech' that attacks or contrasts with thier views,

You may be right but I suggest that you should extend your criticism towards many Muslim countries as well. The quote below is a typical hate speech towards Jews in Saudi Arabia. And I suggest to you that this type of blood libel against Jews is very common in the Arab world and in Iran. I would hope that people like you should admonish your brethern as well!

“During this holiday [Purim], the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare –– it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets....For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries....Before I go into the details, I would like to clarify that the Jews' spilling human blood to prepare pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various times....during the holiday, the Jews wear carnival-style masks and costumes and overindulge in drinking alcohol, prostitution, and adultery.....”

Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University
Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh, March 10, 2002

[scattergood]

I was reading in another thread about a Danish newspaper that made some extremely insulting cartoons of the holy Prophet Muhammed, I as a Muslim find this compeletly unacceptable, Others believe that one should be able to say whatever they want regardless of the offense it causes.

One's freedom of speech is not limited by the 'feelings' of somebody who hears it. In the USA the freedom of speech is not absolute either, it is limited by three factors:

1) Clear and present danger.
2) Pornography to the young. (Which is not relavant to this discussion)
3) Incitement to violent or criminal acts that will reasonably acted upon at the time or very near future.

I will explain how these play out below.

So lets just say for instance I was to say "I hate Niggers!" Is that freedom of speech? In my view its complete racism not freedom of speech! However the liberals seem to think that saying such things are acceptable and bashing anything and everything in the name of freedom of speech is fine.

You are perfectly protected to say "I hate niggers", it does not fall into any of the above categories. You cannot bring an bound black man onto the stage at a KKK rally, push him into the audience of white robed and hooded listeners and say "I hate niggers and think they should all die, it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder". One could 'reasonably' assume that you are inciting the crowd to violence at the time and encouraging a felony at the time. As such when the black man in question is killed those who killed him would be tried for murder, as well as the speaker for murder and accessory to murder. The speaker's claim of 'freedom of speech' is invalidated by the limitiation of Incitement to violent or criminal acts that will reasonably acted upon at the time or very near future.

In your world view you want to right to not be offended, and you basically don't have that right. Everybody is offended by some speech, some ideas. The only way to assure that an idea can be heard no matter how offensive, is to assure that all ideas can be heard no matter how offensive. For example, yes slavery existed in the USA for around 350 years and a slave owner in the South would have been GREATLY offended by the idea that 'black people are humans just like you and me and deserve the same rights and considerations' or more simply if you said as a white person 'I love black people'. If the world worked according to your view then by saying 'I love black people' and offending the white slave owner the speaker should be punished, which I think we can agree is something we wouldn't want.

In my view freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech when you begin to insult someone or thier feelings, There is so much hipocrisy on the part of western nations when it comes to 'freedom of speech', Take UK where I live for example, It is a crime to give sermons on Fridays after Juma prayers that seem to promote extremist views, What happened to 'freedom of speech' there? So you see whilst these western nations are beating thier chests and using 'freedom of speech' as a ruse to insult and upset our religious or racial feelings they are at the same time simultaneously putting down all 'freedom of speech' that attacks or contrasts with thier views

In the UK, they have basically made the determination that SOME sermons that preach hatred, violence, and totalitarianism may result in near term violence and thus should be limited. As mentioned above there ARE limitiations on freedom of speech, it is not absolute and the state has an explicit and implicit right and obligation to protect itself.

The fundamental idea explaining this is the idea that the Constitution is not a 'suicide pact'. Basically, the freeoms granted unter the Constitution are not there for somebody to exploit to bring the society or state down:

In 1949, Justice Jackson (he was not the chief justice) finished a fiery dissenting opinion in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) with these words: "There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

In the case, a fellow named Terminiello, who claimed to be a Catholic priest, gave a hate-filled public speech blasting "Communistic Zionist Jews, FDR, Queen Eleanor" Roosevelt ("one of the world's communists") and others. Protesters demonstrated against him, violence broke out, and Terminiello was charged with disorderly conduct. At the trial, the judge told the jury Terminiello could be found guilty if the jury concluded his speech brought about a condition of unrest.

Terminiello was convicted and appealed. The Supreme Court eventually ruled for Terminiello in a 5-4 decision, saying the judge's instruction had infringed upon the defendant's right of free speech. In his dissent, Jackson insisted that Terminiello's agitprop had gone beyond the bounds of protected speech and the state had the right to lock him up. Jackson's point was Ashcroft's point: Extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of the nation.

While not part of the majority decision, a decision I might point out that actually PROTECTED the religious person's ability to spew hatred, the 'suicide pact' notion has entered legal thought. Read the article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2060342/

When all is said and done, There is no real 'freedom of speech' only 'freedom of speech' to attack concepts or religions/races that are alien to them, Using 'freedom of speech' to attack thier native religion/race or values is seen as incitement or extremism.

Your idea that unless freedom is absolute it doesn't exist at all is that of a child's. Do you have absolute freedom to do what ever you want, no? You can't go steal a car because you want to, kill somebody because you fell like it. Does that mean that you aren't free?

No, the freedoms in a society are always tempered by the rights of others and balancing them is the tricky part. You aren't free to kill somebody because society says their freedom to live is more important. You aren't free to yell "Fire, get out, get out" in a crowded movie theater because the other patron's freedom to not be trampled to death because of the clear and present danger you created through panic is more important. Does this mean that because you can't shout 'Fire' in a movie theater you don't have freedom of speech, of course it doesn't.

I know what you folks are going to say; "If you dont like it, Leave". But that still doesnt answer the double standards or the hypocrisy that exists in western society does it? Its very much like America claiming to be a beacon of light and freedom for te world, nevermind the fact that blacks were enslaved for 400 years, the native people were exterminated or the fact that until only recently blacks and others were not even allowed to walk on the same streets as whites, Then if an African american was to complain about the hypocrisy, A WASP would reply: "Go back to Africa! If you dont Like it".

Yeah thats gonna work!

No, you don't know what I am going to say. I would tell you, argue your point, be heard in society, and change people's minds and the law. You have absolutly no right to not be offended. The state cannot protect you from having your feelings hurt, but it can and does protect your from real bodily harm and in SOME cases, you have to limit seech to do so.

And BTW, try even thinking about having this discussion in the KSA, Syria, Egypt or most Sharia based countries. The very notion of freedom of speech is based on the idea of pluralism, that IDEAS can co-exist in society and that the limitation should be based on actual harm. That idea doesn't exist in the Islamists world, but does in the Western world. Is it perfect in the West, no, it isn't. We get it wrong all the time, but is it fixable because we have the ideas of pluralism and freedom of speech and ideas, yes.

Societies are moving targets, what we call moral our past citizens call immoral. Slavery is a great example. Only by having freedom of speech and ideas could we change viewing a black person in the USA a piece of property to a human being. (BTW, the KSA only officially outlawed slavery in 1967).

[The Negotiator]

You may be right but I suggest that you should extend your criticism towards many Muslim countries as well. The quote below is a typical hate speech towards Jews in Saudi Arabia. And I suggest to you that this type of blood libel against Jews is very common in the Arab world and in Iran. I would hope that people like you should admonish your brethern as well!

Thats a bad example to say the least, Saudi Arabia is not a 'western style' of democracy it is a theocracy/absolute monarchy, There is a hugh difference between UK/US and Saudi Arabia, One is a religious state based on the Shariah law the others Uk/US claim to be 'democractic'.

[scattergood]

Thats a bad example to say the least, Saudi Arabia is not a 'western style' of democracy it is a theocracy/absolute monarchy, There is a hugh difference between UK/US and Saudi Arabia, One is a religious state based on the Shariah law the others Uk/US claim to be 'democractic'.

But that's the whole point. Yes the USA/UK are very different from the KSA as you point out, one is based on the liberal, pluralistic basis of Western culture and one is based on the totalitarianism of Sharia.

In the USA/UK you have no right to not be offended by somebody saying that Mohammed is a buggerer of young boys, and in the KSA you do have that right. If you want to not be offended by the ideas of others you can either live in a western style democracy convince them that the ideas are incorrect and thus they choose not to espouse them through the freedom of speach that you seem to dislike, or you can live in a state that punishes them for saying things that the state (you in this case) dislike.

The choice is yours and I am not advocating that you should do one or the other, just that you can't expect the protections of a totalitarian regime in a western democracy.

[The Negotiator]

One's freedom of speech is not limited by the 'feelings' of somebody who hears it. In the USA the freedom of speech is not absolute either, it is limited by three factors:

1) Clear and present danger.
2) Pornography to the young. (Which is not relavant to this discussion)
3) Incitement to violent or criminal acts that will reasonably acted upon at the time or very near future.

I will explain how these play out below.

Sorry but who is to say that freedom of speech is limited by only those three points you have raised? Freedom of speech and the right to dissent is much much more than that.

You are perfectly protected to say "I hate niggers", it does not fall into any of the above categories. You cannot bring an bound black man onto the stage at a KKK rally, push him into the audience of white robed and hooded listeners and say "I hate niggers and think they should all die, it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder". One could 'reasonably' assume that you are inciting the crowd to violence at the time and encouraging a felony at the time. As such when the black man in question is killed those who killed him would be tried for murder, as well as the speaker for murder and accessory to murder. The speaker's claim of 'freedom of speech' is invalidated by the limitiation of Incitement to violent or criminal acts that will reasonably acted upon at the time or very near future.


In my view there is little difference between "I hate niggers" and "I hate niggers and think they should all die, it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder". Both veiws are totally unacceptable and have no place in society, But what you are saying is it is fine to say that one hates a certain group but it is not fine to give reasons for that hatred which with your example is because "it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder" So basically the only difference is one just says he hates a certain group whilst another says that he hates a group and gives his reasons for that hatred. Little difference as both still clearly show hatred and animosity towards another group which has no place in any form of civilized society.


In your world view you want to right to not be offended, and you basically don't have that right. Everybody is offended by some speech, some ideas. The only way to assure that an idea can be heard no matter how offensive, is to assure that all ideas can be heard no matter how offensive. For example, yes slavery existed in the USA for around 350 years and a slave owner in the South would have been GREATLY offended by the idea that 'black people are humans just like you and me and deserve the same rights and considerations' or more simply if you said as a white person 'I love black people'. If the world worked according to your view then by saying 'I love black people' and offending the white slave owner the speaker should be punished, which I think we can agree is something we wouldn't want.

Its my right to not to be offended; I do not offend others and do not expect to be offended, Its morals, rather like 'Do to others as you would have them do to you'. I do not hate or express any form of violence towards anyone and I should be treated similarly, If western society is unable to treat me equally or as a protected citizen of the state, It shows only that western society has only lost its morals and principles, Basically they no longer know how to be diplomatic, Your upbringing and principles should tell you that saying "I hate Jews/Niggers" is out of place not the laws of the land, Basically I do not go out killing people because its against the law, I do not do this because it goes against everything that I have been taught. If you lack this kind of upbringing or morals it reflects poorly on your society, I do not need to be told where the line is drawn, I know where it is drawn.

[ygalg1]

I am no expert on the issue but I find the ‘freedom of speech’ to be complex
There was an incident of a reporter lady to call moshe dats’s (a famous singer in Israel) dad (obm) on the phone, what she ask might be the cause of death of moshe’s dad (obm)
A tongue can be deadlier as sword
In my opinion ‘freedom of speech’ should be examine and explored and really work out, so it won’t gone to the wrong ways

Note: For putting Muhammad, in comical postures it is perhaps not appropriate, it isn’t border on blasphemy! Its only when directed to G-d

[scattergood]

Sorry but who is to say that freedom of speech is limited by only those three points you have raised? Freedom of speech and the right to dissent is much much more than that.

What else is it limited by, what other categories of speech limitation do you experience?

In my view there is little difference between "I hate niggers" and "I hate niggers and think they should all die, it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder". Both veiws are totally unacceptable and have no place in society, But what you are saying is it is fine to say that one hates a certain group but it is not fine to give reasons for that hatred which with your example is because "it is G-d's view that this should happen and it isn't murder" So basically the only difference is one just says he hates a certain group whilst another says that he hates a group and gives his reasons for that hatred. Little difference as both still clearly show hatred and animosity towards another group which has no place in any form of civilized society.

No that is not what I said at all. Please reread what I posted. Specifically, I said that if a black man was in the room when you said it to a group of white robed kkk nut jobs, then the speech is reasonably interpreted to be instructions or encouragement to perform a felony. That is what limits the speech. If you, your immam, and 5 of your buddies want to sit in a room and say the Jews suck and Allah says it is a good to hate the Jews, go right ahead. But if you do so in front of a synagogue with a screaming mob of 1000 then at that moment the speech might be limited.

Its my right to not to be offended; I do not offend others and do not expect to be offended, Its morals, rather like 'Do to others as you would have them do to you'. I do not hate or express any form of violence towards anyone and I should be treated similarly, If western society is unable to treat me equally or as a protected citizen of the state, It shows only that western society has only lost its morals and principles, Basically they no longer know how to be diplomatic, Your upbringing and principles should tell you that saying "I hate Jews/Niggers" is out of place not the laws of the land, Basically I do not go out killing people because its against the law, I do not do this because it goes against everything that I have been taught. If you lack this kind of upbringing or morals it reflects poorly on your society, I do not need to be told where the line is drawn, I know where it is drawn.

You have absolutely no right not to be offended. How do you know you don't offend others? Maybe I find you offensive, maybe I find you line of thought narrowminded and unintelligent and I am offended that a Muslim living in a Western country dares to question the very freedoms that he lives under because he is offended that others question the totalitarian, racist, and violent ideology that a non-western 7th century military conquerer espouses.

Maybe that's the case, maybe I am offended by your very ungratefulness. But maybe I am not, maybe I respect that you are sharing your thoughts on a complicated and sensitive issue in a hope to expand your and other's views of the subject with total openness and honesty. How do you really know what I feel, just how canI presume to really know what you feel? Maybe you are just lying about how you feel in order to promote Islamofacism, I don't know and I don't presume to.

[Reffo]

Thats a bad example to say the least, Saudi Arabia is not a 'western style' of democracy it is a theocracy/absolute monarchy, There is a hugh difference between UK/US and Saudi Arabia, One is a religious state based on the Shariah law the others Uk/US claim to be 'democractic'.

But you missed my point entirely. Firstly, I was not just talking about Saudi Arabia, I was talking about most of the Arab world and Iran. Secondly, I did not mention them as an excuse (I actually said that you may be right). What I would like you and other moderate Muslims to do though is to bear pressure on these theocracies and dictatorship as well. Who knows, if millions of decent Muslims get up in arms (I don't mean weapons, I mean sustained peaceful protest)against their industry of hatred then it might bear fruit. Equally, the rest of us have to do our level best to help you eliminate incitement in the democracies that we live in. After all, if that were to happen, we would all be better off.

[Achihud]

Everybody is offended by some speech, some ideas. The only way to assure that an idea can be heard no matter how offensive, is to assure that all ideas can be heard no matter how offensive. For example (...)

For example, take my post that was censored/deleted entirely last night!

title: For a moment I thought I was Mohammed...phew! (part I)

Last night, I had a revelation while I was sleeping. I knew that my body was resting but my mind was wide awake and yet it was not a dream. I saw a frog sitting on my shoulder. Just like telepathy, the frog started to talk to me.
The frog said; "Behold, there is only one God."
I said; "I know but who are you?"
Frog; "I am the One and only who has been listening to your prayers."
I; "Are you saying that you are God?"
Frog; "Indeed, and not only that but I was made famous by all righteous prophets before. I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and also of Jesus."
I; "Am I chosen to spread your message among the peoples of this world?"
Frog; "Yes you are and from now on I will be one your side."
I; "How shall I call you, God? Allah?"
Frog; "It doesn't matter what you call me. As long as you keep stressing that I am the true god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Jesus! Because at the beginning there were no jews, nor were there christians at any point of time. They were frogies and that's what you will be called and you will call them who believe in you frogies as well. But the jews and christians will not be happy if you call their forefathers in-the-faith, frogies. They will prosecute you but you will see through their hypocrisy."
I; "Well, I won't tell everything because they will burst into tears of laughing when they will hear that it was a frog who gave me this revelation but somehow I doubt that anyone will believe me."
Frog; "Just open your mouth the way I do while you keep repeating my message. I will give you a big mouth such as I have. Don’t you think that I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?"
I; "Sure I do…FRROOOGGGG!!!!!"...

...and then I rubbed over my shoulder to let it jump…

Was that over the top?

[scattergood]

For example, take my post that was censored/deleted entirely last night!

title: For a moment I thought I was Mohammed...phew! (part I)

Last night, I had a revelation while I was sleeping. I knew that my body was resting but my mind was wide awake and yet it was not a dream. I saw a frog sitting on my shoulder. Just like telepathy, the frog started to talk to me.
The frog said; "Behold, there is only one God."
I said; "I know but who are you?"
Frog; "I am the One and only who has been listening to your prayers."
I; "Are you saying that you are God?"
Frog; "Indeed, and not only that but I was made famous by all righteous prophets before. I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and also of Jesus."
I; "Am I chosen to spread your message among the peoples of this world?"
Frog; "Yes you are and from now on I will be one your side."
I; "How shall I call you, God? Allah?"
Frog; "It doesn't matter what you call me. As long as you keep stressing that I am the true god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Jesus! Because at the beginning there were no jews, nor were there christians at any point of time. They were frogies and that's what you will be called and you will call them who believe in you frogies as well. But the jews and christians will not be happy if you call their forefathers in-the-faith, frogies. They will prosecute you but you will see through their hypocrisy."
I; "Well, I won't tell everything because they will burst into tears of laughing when they will hear that it was a frog who gave me this revelation but somehow I doubt that anyone will believe me."
Frog; "Just open your mouth the way I do while you keep repeating my message. I will give you a big mouth such as I have. Don’t you think that I am the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?"
I; "Sure I do…FRROOOGGGG!!!!!"...

...and then I rubbed over my shoulder to let it jump…

Was that over the top?

It is not for me to say if that is over the top. Where was this 'censored'. If it is a private organization, then they have every right to do what they want with your messages as long as they reserved taht right before you agreed to put your messages up.

Now the government has NO right to do anything to you because of the above message.

[The Negotiator]

What else is it limited by, what other categories of speech limitation do you experience?

speech limitation is not just limited by the individual but also the powers that individual has at his/her disposal; Basically if I was an unemployment man who likes the whiskey and said "I hate ......" My voice will not have as much weight as say someone who is a media moghul and owns several newspapers and uses his power to send out his politically/religiously motivated messages or provactions.

No that is not what I said at all. Please reread what I posted. Specifically, I said that if a black man was in the room when you said it to a group of white robed kkk nut jobs, then the speech is reasonably interpreted to be instructions or encouragement to perform a felony. That is what limits the speech. If you, your immam, and 5 of your buddies want to sit in a room and say the Jews suck and Allah says it is a good to hate the Jews, go right ahead. But if you do so in front of a synagogue with a screaming mob of 1000 then at that moment the speech might be limited.

What about the BNP (British National Party) that protested outside mosques bearing signs like "No Islam In Uk", "Islam = Terrorism" and all the like? Sure there were some Anti Nazi league members to counter that demonstration and some police but despite this it soon turned ugly with stones being thrown at mosque windows and in some cases Mosques have been set ablaze, I do not see PM Blair crackdown on BNP, Skinheads, Neo-nazis, Last time I checked there were no skinheads/Neo-Nazis being held without trial on terrorism charges.

So if you are going to crack down on bearded Islamic extremists because you dont like what they say, Also crack down on the skinhead Swazitka tatooted extremists that call for extermination of Muslims in the UK.

You have absolutely no right not to be offended. How do you know you don't offend others? Maybe I find you offensive, maybe I find you line of thought narrowminded and unintelligent and I am offended that a Muslim living in a Western country dares to question the very freedoms that he lives under because he is offended that others question the totalitarian, racist, and violent ideology that a non-western 7th century military conquerer espouses.

Maybe that's the case, maybe I am offended by your very ungratefulness. But maybe I am not, maybe I respect that you are sharing your thoughts on a complicated and sensitive issue in a hope to expand your and other's views of the subject with total openness and honesty. How do you really know what I feel, just how canI presume to really know what you feel? Maybe you are just lying about how you feel in order to promote Islamofacism, I don't know and I don't presume to.

Thats what Im trying to say; You and your society thinks its my duty to accept all the abuse that is hurled at me and my religion in the name of freedom of speech Infact your society promotes it, Like I said if you cant say anything postive, Just do not say anything at all. Thats the way it should be, Perhaps thats utopian and western society and the world is incapable of doing that, But like I said such things should not rest with the government rather the individual, The individuals upbringing should tell him/her what is acceptable and what is not, That should not the bussiness of the state, But when someone clearly goes to far the government must do something because this individual is clearly disfunctional member of society, Perhaps some kind of therapy, as opposed to supporting it under the guise of freedom of speech and turning a blind eye.

[The Negotiator]

But you missed my point entirely. Firstly, I was not just talking about Saudi Arabia, I was talking about most of the Arab world and Iran. Secondly, I did not mention them as an excuse (I actually said that you may be right). What I would like you and other moderate Muslims to do though is to bear pressure on these theocracies and dictatorship as well. Who knows, if millions of decent Muslims get up in arms (I don't mean weapons, I mean sustained peaceful protest)against their industry of hatred then it might bear fruit. Equally, the rest of us have to do our level best to help you eliminate incitement in the democracies that we live in. After all, if that were to happen, we would all be better off.

How are Muslims supposed to do that? Is this like post-desert storm Bush support for Iraqi marsh Arabs who where promised support by the Americans to rise up against Saddam and were left to be butchered by his henchmen when the US "Ejected the Iraqi army from Kuwait" and went home?. Sorry But you can not play a spoilers game, One the one hand supporting people like Saddam, Shah of Iran, Musharraf, and other dictators from the Islamic world, Yet at the same time support an uprising against the very leaders you are supporting and giving weapons and other goodies.

Actions speak louder than words.

[scattergood]

speech limitation is not just limited by the individual but also the powers that individual has at his/her disposal; Basically if I was an unemployment man who likes the whiskey and said "I hate ......" My voice will not have as much weight as say someone who is a media moghul and owns several newspapers and uses his power to send out his politically/religiously motivated messages or provactions.

Then you don't understand what freedom of speech is. It is the right to SAY something limited by the three postulates I mentione. It is NOT the right to be HEARD by the same number of people as everybody else.

Bill Gate's free speech rights are exactly the same as yours. His ability to garner coverage, pay for advertising, or what ever he decidces to get his message out is more than yours, but his greater ability is not a detriment to your right of free speech.

Again, you have the right to say what ever you want, but you don't have the right to be able to say it to as many people as everybody else. That's the marketplace of ideas, if they are good ones people will eventually come to listen to them.

What about the BNP (British National Party) that protested outside mosques bearing signs like "No Islam In Uk", "Islam = Terrorism" and all the like? Sure there were some Anti Nazi league members to counter that demonstration and some police but despite this it soon turned ugly with stones being thrown at mosque windows and in some cases Mosques have been set ablaze, I do not see PM Blair crackdown on BNP, Skinheads, Neo-nazis, Last time I checked there were no skinheads/Neo-Nazis being held without trial on terrorism charges.

So if you are going to crack down on bearded Islamic extremists because you dont like what they say, Also crack down on the skinhead Swazitka tatooted extremists that call for extermination of Muslims in the UK..

Well, that's free speech working baby. There was a Mosque (freedom of religion) at which the BNP protested (freedom of speech) and at which there were counter protesters (counter freedom of speech). Once the rocks were thrown, were the BNP members dispersed by the police? Were they perpetrators proscecuted?

The point is there shouldn't be prior restraint of speech unless there is compelling state interest, like clear and present danger. In the UK they have made the determination that certin immam's espousing hatred do create clear and present danger. If you have a problem with their interpretation or feel it isn't balanced, go talk to the powers that be and say that the BNP when they speak creates a clear and present danger. If the governmental powers doen't agree, then vote in new members who do, or take them to court and find relief there. Your problem is with how the UK gov't perceives clear and present danger.

Thats what Im trying to say; You and your society thinks its my duty to accept all the abuse that is hurled at me and my religion in the name of freedom of speech Infact your society promotes it, Like I said if you cant say anything postive, Just do not say anything at all. Thats the way it should be, Perhaps thats utopian and western society and the world is incapable of doing that, But like I said such things should not rest with the government rather the individual, The individuals upbringing should tell him/her what is acceptable and what is not, That should not the bussiness of the state, But when someone clearly goes to far the government must do something because this individual is clearly disfunctional member of society, Perhaps some kind of therapy, as opposed to supporting it under the guise of freedom of speech.

Yes, you must take all the invective that is thrown at you, just as I must take all the invective that is thrown at me. Why can't I be just as offended by the immams in the USA and the UK that call for the destruction of the State of Israel, the islamization of all of the the USA and the UK, that all Jews should be killed and that the Queen should become a devout Muslim?

Your problem is that this speech is something YOU find offensive so it should be stopped. Are you willing to stop all speech that I, or KettleWhistle, or Medio find offensive? What if that speech that I find offensive is coming from you or your dad, or your immam? Would you stop it then just because I felt threatened because of it? That is a recipie for disaster.

Instead, the west has figured out that it is better to let everybody speak no matter what they say, and only stop them if what they say is dangerous at the time they say it. Punish people for their actions not their thoughts. That way everybody can think what they want.

[Reffo]

But you missed my point entirely. Firstly, I was not just talking about Saudi Arabia, I was talking about most of the Arab world and Iran. Secondly, I did not mention them as an excuse (I actually said that you may be right). What I would like you and other moderate Muslims to do though is to bear pressure on these theocracies and dictatorship as well. Who knows, if millions of decent Muslims get up in arms (I don't mean weapons, I mean sustained peaceful protest)against their industry of hatred then it might bear fruit. Equally, the rest of us have to do our level best to help you eliminate incitement in the democracies that we live in. After all, if that were to happen, we would all be better off.

How are Muslims supposed to do that? Is this like post-desert storm Bush support for Iraqi marsh Arabs who where promised support by the Americans to rise up against Saddam and were left to be butchered by his henchmen when the US "Ejected the Iraqi army from Kuwait" and went home?. Sorry But you can not play a spoilers game, One the one hand supporting people like Saddam, Shah of Iran, Musharraf, and other dictators from the Islamic world, Yet at the same time support an uprising against the very leaders you are supporting and giving weapons and other goodies.

Actions speak louder than words.

How? The same way as what you are trying to do with your first post on this thread, by clearly voicing your displeasure both ways, you and millions of peace loving Muslims (those who really are) who live in the western democracies. Yes, by all means, criticize and point out weaknesses and hypocrisy in our democracies but don't be shy and be equally persistent in pointing out the same hypocrisies (or worse) in the Arab world and Iran. Heck, for that matter, such hypocrisy exists even among elements of the Muslim emigrees in Western societies because they incite against, humiliate and belittle others. All I am asking you to do is to speak out equally strongly against them. And since you live in western democracies, you are reasonably well protected and your Marsh Arab analogy does not apply!

Conversely, if you are not prepared to speak out against EVERYONE's hypocrisy and you only target non Muslim hypocrisy, then you too could be targeted with the accusation of hypocrisy.