Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 284 posts

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#31

Post by milfot »

javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

Quick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west?

And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'.

The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religion.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#32

Post by sliverstorm »

guylhem wrote: post #28
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

> we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people Benjamin Franklin addressed that issue "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Sometimes, I wonder what's the next target after free speech. I don't think farmers are a strategic objective. If I had to make that call,…

Quote him correctly:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

It is important to do so; "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" are not the same as "liberty" and "safety".

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#33

Post by tsotha »

linuxhansl wrote: post #21

"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be). If people would be sufficiently secure about their religious views any criticism would just be ignored and people would go on about their business. (Well, the truth is that people are angry to begin with, and religion is just a nice excuse to vent t…

>"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be).

You don't get it because you're not a devout Muslim of one of the more violent sects, and this is a pretty common problem with people in the West. There's no point in trying to divine motivations in this particular area without understanding the Weltanschauung.

It's not about insecurity. They believe God wants them to punish (with death) people who insult Him.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#34

Post by linuxhansl »

RobAtticus wrote: post #23
linuxhansl wrote: post #21

"Blasphemy" is one of those things I do not get. Religious criticism seems to unearth the general insecurity that people have about their religion (whatever is might be). If people would be sufficiently secure about their religious views any criticism would just be ignored and people would go on about their business. (Well, the truth is that people are angry to begin with, and religion is just a nice excuse to vent t…

Do you think that all murders happen because the murderer hates the victim? I think it's very possible for their to be violent non-hate crimes (e.g., murder for hire, killing witnesses to another crime, etc).

No I don't. You are right of course.

I just find the term "hate crime" a bit pointless. As if violence against a person is worse if the motive was hatred or that person is ... {pick any of: gay, black, white, atheist, catholic, protestant, American, muslim, ...}

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#35

Post by guylhem »

sliverstorm wrote: post #32
guylhem wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people Benjamin Franklin addressed that issue "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Sometimes, I wonder what's the next target after free speech. I don't think farmers are a strategic objective. If I had to make that call,…

Quote him correctly: Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. It is important to do so; "essential liberty" and "temporary safety" are not the same as "liberty" and "safety".

You are right. My mistake. I fixed that.

Freedom of speech is an essential liberty. The #1 most essential liberty, to allow science, progress and democracy

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#36

Post by spindritf »

milfot wrote: post #31
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

Quick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west? And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religio…

> please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'.

No need to rewrite anything, it's both their hostility and philosophical differences that scare us. Overcoming that fear and reaffirming our values is the basis for one of the most important texts in the European culture — The Song of Roland.

EDIT: I do know what you mean and I'm sorry but those are just feel-good platitudes. West quite obviously is not afraid of militant Christians or atheists. Mostly because there aren't really any left, and those who still hang around don't regularly erupt in violence, but also because they're much more like us and it's easier for us to understand their particular extremism.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#37

Post by coolestuk »

milfot wrote: post #31
javajosh wrote: post #9

Why can't the article just come out and say what it means? Militant Islam scares the crap out of the West, and we're willing to pass laws and endure a certain level of self-censorship to avoid provoking violence out of these people. The simple lesson here is that if you want to stop non-believers from doing blasphemy, violent reprisals work . And really, self-censorship is a practical stance, if not a principled one.…

Quick question, do you actually think it is the 'militant' or the 'islam' that scares the west? And once you figure out the (right) answer to that question, please rewrite your post to replace 'islamists' with 'militants'. The real lesson here is what better way to mobilise a generation of a nation into militancy than occupy their country, sell off their assets, kill 5% of the population and then insult their religio…

Almost the whole world that is islamic became muslim through military occupation, the mass slaughter of the males who fought or would not convert, the looting of property and the selling off into slavery of their women and children. This was all based on emulating the behaviour of Mohammed (known as sunnah in islamic practice); Mohammed took 20% of the spoils from his army of warriors. (Some describe him as the profit of 20% because of this). This can be verified in The Life of Mohammed, the first biography of Mohammed (and written by a muslim 100 years after the death of Mohammed). The author, Ibn Ishaq, was a christian who was taken as a slave to Medina, and converted to islam for a better life (one of the inducements used in the spread of islam).

The real lesson is that christianity endured 300 years of this aggression, before Pope Urban made christianity do an about turn, and began the (very minimal) Crusades against islam. They were a failure, and islamic violence against European christendom continued until the Siege of Vienna (when Jan Sobieski defeated the muslim army on September 11, 1683).

Watch just 1 minute of this video to see what happened: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

The muslim attack against Europe continued beyond this. The white slave trade continued for hundreds of years (it was stopped by a joint British/US naval bombardment of Algeria in 1815). In 1951 the UN report on slavery calculated that 5% of the population of Saudi Arabia and Yemen were still slaves.

Buddhism did not respond in the same way as christianity to islamic aggression. Many experts on the history of buddhism say that buddhism died about 1000 years ago (e.g. Conze). And they explicitly attribute this death of buddhism to the onslaught of the islamic invasion & destruction in India.

The real lesson is that some religions are actually militant political movements wrapped up in religion. Islam is one such religion. Islamic militancy was going on for hundreds of years before christianity responded in kind.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#38

Post by brianchu »

droithomme wrote: post #8

> The much-misconstrued statement of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that free speech does not give you the right to shout fire in a crowded theater is now being used to curtail speech that might provoke a violence-prone minority. This is very incorrect to say it is misconstrued. In Schenck vs US, the Court was prosecuting a pacifist who distributed pamphlets protesting the involuntary draft in World War I, arguing tha…

On the contrary, the cases you cite are actually very clearly cases of protected speech. The "imminent lawless action" test has a third element: intent. Unprotected speech has to also have the intent of causing "imminent lawless action."

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#39

Post by camus »

Except free speech only exists in US, doesnt exist in any Europe country for instance. In US you can say almost anything you want about anything. Not the case in Uk or France. If you deny holocaust in France for instance , you're going to be prosecuted. So while the article is interesting it only applies to USA.

Re: Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

#40

Post by mansoor-s »

tsotha wrote: post #30
killwhitey wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be a good strategy to stop state sponsored attacks, but what about the rest? What about the World Trade Center attacks? The 2002 Bali bombings? The 2005 London bombings?

The WTC attacks were committed by people who were in the country legally, either at the time or they had overstayed a visa. Those attacks would not have happened if the individuals involved weren't granted visas.

Are you telling me I should not be allowed in the USA of which I am a law abiding citizen because of my ethnicity?

Its okay, be strait with me. You won't hurt my feelings.

Post reply on HN