Current Events & Hot Topics
Michigan Muslims rally against First Amendment
Led by a newspaper publisher, Muslim activists will call for putting
limits on American free speech at a Dearborn rally this evening. You
can't make this stuff up.
Nearly a decade after Dearborn's streets celebrated America for bringing
down Saddam Hussein and opening a door to democracy in the Mideast, the
same city will be the epicenter today of calls to squelch free speech.
Protesting the film, "Innocence of Muslims," that has sparked protests
in the Mideast, rally organizer Tarek Baydoun says that so-called
blasphemy laws are necessary to prevent speech that hurts the "the
religious feelings of Muslims."
This assault on the First Amendment in the name of the prophet Mohammed
is a sad day in America — and confirms fears that Muslim-American
activists do not understand the fundamental separation of church and
state in the American Constitution.
Replies
-
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
-
This is exactly what's bothered me about all this. Muslims are being attacked and harassed in this country because of all this.
Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:
Quoting Moniker:
To be honest I really never looked at the issue from the persepctive of protecting Muslims from violence against them. I'm ashamed to admit.
I find it enlightening
-
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
I didn't see it, nor would I. It's irrelevant if it's hate speech or not. I haven't heard anyone say that the movie directs people to hurt or kill anyone else. As long as that's true, if it's hate speech, it's permissible in America under the First Amendment.
-
As I said, the only thing I am arguing for is the credibility of the claim that the rally was (atleast, in part) against free speech. Call me a bigot if you want, the reason I asked was to clarify your meaning in order to clarify dialogue. To me this is less about the article than it is about the rally. I really hope that people are not truly calling for limitations of existing First Amendment law, but there is credible evidence outside of Payne's article, within the Arab American News, pointing to it.
Quoting stacymomof2:
It seems you are dicussing the article, not following it. So I wouldn't say that. If you agree with the parts I highlighted from the article, I'm gonna have to say yes. Do you agree with those parts I pointed out?
-
And what about the billboards that talk about "Islamorealism" and calls Muslims savages? If Muslims are being attacked based on these, does that not cross the line? When does it cross the line? Do they actually have to say "kill Muslims"?
These are rhetorical questions. We as a civilized society should not tolerate hateful speech. Not saying to ban the ads, but they shouldn't be allowed by MTA or any other government funded entity.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
I didn't see it, nor would I. It's irrelevant if it's hate speech or not. I haven't heard anyone say that the movie directs people to hurt or kill anyone else. As long as that's true, if it's hate speech, it's permissible in America under the First Amendment.
-
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
And what about the billboards that talk about "Islamorealism" and calls Muslims savages? If Muslims are being attacked based on these, does that not cross the line? When does it cross the line? Do they actually have to say "kill Muslims"?
These are rhetorical questions. We as a civilized society should not tolerate hateful speech. Not saying to ban the ads, but they shouldn't be allowed by MTA or any other government funded entity.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
I didn't see it, nor would I. It's irrelevant if it's hate speech or not. I haven't heard anyone say that the movie directs people to hurt or kill anyone else. As long as that's true, if it's hate speech, it's permissible in America under the First Amendment.
It's my understanding that the MTA didn't want to accept that advertising but after a court fight was forced to.
Regarding the rest of what you said, the line is not crossed by hating but by advocating violence, inciting riot, telling others to harm others. I find hate speech repugnant, but calling someone a savage doesn't cross the line in my opinion to be disallowed speech. It crosses the line of good taste and being a decent human being, but we let people be distasteful and horrible in America.
The best way to combat hate is through education and peaceful return protest, not violence. And not abrogating the First Amendment.
-
I still disagree with the ruling. That billboard wasn't all pro-Israel, but anti Palestine and anti - Muslim.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
And what about the billboards that talk about "Islamorealism" and calls Muslims savages? If Muslims are being attacked based on these, does that not cross the line? When does it cross the line? Do they actually have to say "kill Muslims"?
These are rhetorical questions. We as a civilized society should not tolerate hateful speech. Not saying to ban the ads, but they shouldn't be allowed by MTA or any other government funded entity.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
I didn't see it, nor would I. It's irrelevant if it's hate speech or not. I haven't heard anyone say that the movie directs people to hurt or kill anyone else. As long as that's true, if it's hate speech, it's permissible in America under the First Amendment.
It's my understanding that the MTA didn't want to accept that advertising but after a court fight was forced to.
Regarding the rest of what you said, the line is not crossed by hating but by advocating violence, inciting riot, telling others to harm others. I find hate speech repugnant, but calling someone a savage doesn't cross the line in my opinion to be disallowed speech. It crosses the line of good taste and being a decent human being, but we let people be distasteful and horrible in America.
The best way to combat hate is through education and peaceful return protest, not violence. And not abrogating the First Amendment.
-
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
I still disagree with the ruling. That billboard wasn't all pro-Israel, but anti Palestine and anti - Muslim.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
And what about the billboards that talk about "Islamorealism" and calls Muslims savages? If Muslims are being attacked based on these, does that not cross the line? When does it cross the line? Do they actually have to say "kill Muslims"?
These are rhetorical questions. We as a civilized society should not tolerate hateful speech. Not saying to ban the ads, but they shouldn't be allowed by MTA or any other government funded entity.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
1. I haven't seen the movie. Have you?
2. This is one speaker stating his opinion that the movie fell under the umbrella of hate speech. Just because the Iman may have a different assessment than others, that doesn't nearly mean he wants blasphemy laws or is trying to stop free speech.
3. I said I don't necessarily agree that it's hate speech, but again, I haven't seen the movie.
Quoting romalove:
Quoting LilyofPhilly:
"This kind of message should not be taken in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not entitle these bigots to attack our holy prophet," Imam Hassan Al-Qizwini stated.
And that is for the courts to decide. If speech incites violence, then it is not protected by the first amendment. The Iman seems to be referencing this exception. He is stating his opinion that the video falls under such an exception. I don't personally agree, but I haven't seen the video either.
This is the problem, right here. As repugnant as it is to blaspheme or attack someone else's religion or holy prophet, in America we have an absolute right to do so under our free speech rights. The chill effect of being proscribed from being able to do so outweighs the "wrongness" we may feel. People should always keep in mind that the biggest reason we need free speech is to ensure we can speak out against government if we want to without fear of prison or physical harm.
I didn't see it, nor would I. It's irrelevant if it's hate speech or not. I haven't heard anyone say that the movie directs people to hurt or kill anyone else. As long as that's true, if it's hate speech, it's permissible in America under the First Amendment.
It's my understanding that the MTA didn't want to accept that advertising but after a court fight was forced to.
Regarding the rest of what you said, the line is not crossed by hating but by advocating violence, inciting riot, telling others to harm others. I find hate speech repugnant, but calling someone a savage doesn't cross the line in my opinion to be disallowed speech. It crosses the line of good taste and being a decent human being, but we let people be distasteful and horrible in America.
The best way to combat hate is through education and peaceful return protest, not violence. And not abrogating the First Amendment.
I am uncomfortable with forcing someone to sell advertising space to someone else. If it's "your" space, you should be able to pick and choose who you sell it to. On that basis I am uncomfortable with the ruling.
The poster doesn't name Islam or muslims or Palestine at all. It references "savages" and speaks of Israel as civilized, but doesn't say who the "savages" are. We know because we pay attention, but it's alluded to, not said right out. I don't honestly know if it makes a difference or not in terms of the MTA's ability to pick and choose who it sells ad space to.
-
Hello...if free speech is taken out what about free speech n their religion...that would mean we all agree on one world order type stuff later or what??? Speaking of free speach muslims say JESUS was just a prophet only a man.....isnt that free speach????? -
Quoting amandamoffett:
Hello...if free speech is taken out what about free speech n their religion...that would mean we all agree on one world order type stuff later or what??? Speaking of free speach muslims say JESUS was just a prophet only a man.....isnt that free speach?????We Muslims already have free speech and to us Jesus was a prophet.