Here's A Free Speech Shocker
The UN head is against it, except when a person is saying or writing nice things! For a good purpose! (And the UN, the body where the worst human rights violators sit on the Human Rights Council, gets to decide?)
Vincent Carroll writes in the Denver Post:
"Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, according to Reuters, in what sounded like a good start in addressing the "Innocence of Muslims" furor. But he quickly revealed he didn't mean it. It turns out that free speech should be protected only when it is "used for common justice, common purpose" -- and of course you know who gets to define those terms."When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way," Ban continued.
"My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act."
...It is also yet another reminder to those in the United States, beginning at the top reaches of the administration, who seem reluctant to offer an unqualified defense of free expression, even when it is admittedly offensive. When they blame violence on free speech, they play into the hands of those who don't believe in free speech in the first place.
Again, Christians were pretty, uh, pissed, over the photo of Jesus suspended in urine that was "Piss Christ," but they didn't go murder and sodomize and ambassador over it.
via @ariarmstrong
Plain and simple:
I'm watching CBS and Pakistan is rioting over this shit. The idiot talking head is saying the U.S. needs to react differently. Why? We give millions to countries all over the world. Why should we also be kissing their ass?
We should keep all the money and let the rest of the world go to hell.
Jim P. at September 22, 2012 7:17 AM
Guys, let's try to remember the Crusades, m'kay? It was in all the papers.
The reason Christians in America are so much nicer than extreme Muslims in the Middle East is that for the last several hundred years, we've shown our willingness to whip the gooey tar out of any Christian who started mouthing off.
Christians aren't naturally nicer, OK? This is a human nature problem. Christians have been tamed.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at September 22, 2012 8:06 AM
The whole purpose of free speech being protected is precisely to protect offensive speech. Agreeable speech doesn't need protection. Who's going to object to speech that's all hearts and flowers?
From the article: "When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others' values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way," Ban continued."
Does this numbnuts not understand the reasoning behind freedom of speech?
Patrick at September 22, 2012 8:22 AM
I have not seen the film. What I have heard is that for the most part it is factually accurate based on what the Koran and other documents say. Any one know how accurate it is? Though perhaps not presented in the nicest way. Assuming it is, then showing the common the truth is a common good and thus should be protected -- hence meeting his standard.
Here is where is standard becomes problematic. I hold the value that free speech should be for all and in almost all situations should rule (e.g. not fire in a theater) and it does not protect from later lawsuits about false statements, etc. So by his system, he cannot express his desire because it would be against my values which is not allowed under his system.
The Former Banker at September 22, 2012 9:05 AM
"I have not seen the film."
Check YouTube. If you can stomach more than a couple of minutes of it (it's REALLY bad), then your curiosity is more powerful than your retch reflex.
That being said, the "manufactured outrage" (as Salman Rushdie recently labeled it) just shows how desperate the fundie Islamists are.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 22, 2012 9:25 AM
Funny how it all depends on just who is being offended. To take two examples:
- If you say "The Holocaust didn't happen", all sorts of people get annoyed, and this even illegal to say in many European countries.
- If you say "Scientology is brainwashing, and just out to steal people's money" then that's fine, even though a sincere Scientologist would surely find it offensive.
Exactly why one opinion should be allowed, but the other not? Is one only allowed to offend groups if they are small?
a_random_guy at September 22, 2012 9:42 AM
"Exactly why one opinion should be allowed, but the other not? "
Because the whole Muslim-outrage thing is a creation of leftism, and leftism is just narcissism dressed up as a political philosophy. In other words, it's different when they do it!
Cousin Dave at September 22, 2012 10:05 AM
The UN is a big, fat, waste of our money, like 99% of the things our taxes go toward. I'd like to see them try to survive after we yank their funding.
Sosij at September 22, 2012 12:37 PM
"I have not seen the film. What I have heard is that for the most part it is factually accurate based on what the Koran and other documents say. "
One of the problems with the movie is that the trailer is similar to Monty Python's funniest joke in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Funniest_Joke_in_the_World
The trailer is so exceedingly horrible, which is something almost the entire planet is united on, that it is hard to get through enough of it in order to determine its accuracy.
It is astonishingly bad.
(Which doesn't mean it should be pulled.)
jerry at September 22, 2012 7:36 PM
The U.N. is a moral wasteland. It never seems to get to bothered when terrorists kill thousands in New York, when Saddam murders hundreds of thousands while bribing U.N. security council nations, or when Jews are blow up by terrorists in Israel. But the U.N. will convene world conferences should an American or Jew say something against the "religion of peace."
Trust at September 23, 2012 7:01 AM
Trust, I was reflecting the other day on how the mask has been ripped off of the U.N. Back when I was a kid, the U.N. was sold to us as being the answer to all of humanity's problems -- it was going to end war and wipe out poverty within a generation. I've been commenting to a few threads at Pajamas Media the past couple of weeks on how leftism was able to hijack Western liberalism. I think there was a fundamental intellectual weakness that came about after WWII, which was won largely due to the efforts of Western liberals, but it convinced them that they had all of the answers. And further, that they could embody all of those answers in a technocratic institution that is artificially structured and answers to no one. It seemed too easy to be true. And as it turned out, it was.
Cousin Dave at September 23, 2012 6:52 PM
Ask me if I care what Mun Ki-Dung or anyone at the UN thinks.
Nolo Contendere at September 24, 2012 12:02 PM
Do you want to be like the real UN? Or do you just want to squabble and waste time?
Sosij at September 24, 2012 1:42 PM
Leave a comment