^ What action should muslims demand be taken? It's one thing for muslims outside the Europe to boycott Danish cheese but what can the those who live in the land do? Go on a hunger strike? In another thread we were told the UK voted down a bill that would make such depictions illegal. Therefore, they are legal in the UK now. If pressure on the government didn't stop the illegal invasion of Iraq, what makes you think it will move it to stop the mainstream propagation of these images? I know you don't have the answers to all of these, and neither do I. They are out there though.

^ Not enough "No" votes, I guess.

^ I don't think you did either, but even if you did, I wouldn't be offended for "in spite of my over all greatness and cleverness, I remain a human that, very [rarely], errs." Do come back. This can of worms you opened needs some attention.

^ You don't have to wait till tomorrow. They're readily available online right now. Ask Johnny where to get them. What I meant by asking "what then" was what's going to happen in the UK (and all its muslims) when the pictures are in fact shown on prime time television?

^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited.

^ What if there's more "Yes" text messages than "No"? Then what?

^ They do. There's just no fat around to activate it.

^ It's more credible, that's for sure.

^ Is there a limit on freedom of speech? Or is it unlimited, by definition? That's what Ngonge has been trying to bang into our heads for days now? I think our good Ngonge is confusing lack of comprehension with disagreement with him. Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore?

^ That still don't prove you're a girl. Some dudes could "push" and "flick" better than you could ever dreamed possible.

^ But my head is already banged up. I don't disagree with any of what he said, I just don't believe free speech is without limits. Neither does Ngonge. Or does he? Do you?

^ What are you doing?

Originally posted by ibtisam: Someone has gone through a transformation in thought and opinion, either that or you were “pulling legs before†:confused: Transformation without examples is something up with which I will not put.

^ Heh. I meant other than people of color or different sexual orientation. That kind of other.

Ah, you had to use the I word, good Ngonge. You just had to go there. It's all about the intent, isn't it? And what a difficult concept to prove. No one has access to another's thought process. If we did, and we knew what the caricaturist intended with those depictions, we wouldn't be here, would we? But motive can be proven. And in the case of the cartoons, it is quite clear the statement that is being made. In this era of political correctness, it's easy to lose sight of why freedom of expression, if gone unchecked, might cause other freedoms to be curtailed. You've heard of the term hate speech, haven't you? I'm sure you have. Well here's the definition of hate speech: Speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication. At least, according to the definition above, the cartoons made by the Danish newspaper are considered hate speech. Other, more familiar, examples of hate speech are those that speak of blacks as inherently inferior or inherently violent. Drawings that show blacks being lynched and some such rotten "art". Let's look at this supposed art for a moment. The Danish paper depicted the prophet with a bomb underneath a head covering. The unambiguous implication therein is that Islam is one that institutionally endorses violence. What else could the depiction imply? Clearly, that is a statement of hate. It overtly shows hatred of the prophet and the alleged violence that is attributed to Islam. That the implication is a patent falsehood is not of the newspaper's concern. Denmark, allegedly, pioneered free speech but that hardly makes what comes out of it unhateful speech. That they would reject the condemnations by muslims in the name of freedom of speech shows what little they understand of other cultures and faiths. Even worse, that the newspaper would admit the grave offence such cartoons have meant to muslims yet they would do it again is unconscionable. Boycotts hardly ever work. Granted. Worse still, as in this case, those leaders advocating for it and have withdrawn their embassies couldn't recognize freedom of speech if it hit them in the face. No matter. The offence stands on its own demerit. And the choice by some to condemn it, ask for a rectraction, demand an apology or boycott the products of Denmark in protest is a perfectly legitimate response to a very legitimate grievance. If we are sensitive to the rights of minorities (of color or sexual orientation) not to be harrassed in the media, it is not unreasonable that the same protection be afforded to the sacred beliefs of others.

^ And had you been a member of the house of lords, you would vote for or against the bill, good Ngonge? My guess is you'd vote it down, i.e. vote nay. You'd tolerate insults of the prophet in the name of freedom of speech. But what's the alternative to tolerance, you scream. The alternative to that is to make sure freedom of speech/expression does not infringe upon another freedom, that of religion. I'm gonna eat. Come back later.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Tell me please, is it me that’s senseless or is that proverbial song reaching its crescendo in Eden? You're against the drawings, as a muslim, but support the newspapers "right" (under the freedom of expression) to publish them. You support the boycott as it is the right of muslims but you doubt its effectiveness as a tool of protest. Finally, you concede that the right to publish such content is questionable and that it may be (successfully) challenged in court. Khalaas. There's really not much to debate here.

^ Here's the entire quote saaxib. Don't misquote the man to suit your needs. Ngonge wrote: One’s right to offend! How far does it go and should it take priority over everything else? I say it should. Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology. For as long as they are free to offend and insult, we too are free to offend and insult. As long as Danish journalists are able to write offensive articles about Islam (or any other faith), Muslim journalists, scholars and presidents (see the Iranian jewel) can also do the same. To complain about religious hatred and try to argue and dissect these points will only lead us to the dark alleyways of questioning our own faith, holy book and revelation. For if we don’t accept insults from the Jews and Christians, why are we reciting verses from our Holy Book that talk about how bad both groups are? Does not respect go both ways? What I want to hear from Ngonge is if he believes there are any exceptions to the freedom of expression (to offend, if you will). And if so, what are these circumstances and who decides on them? The criminal offences I listed earlier are for the United States. Here, freedom of expression does not include the listed crimes, and crimes they are which the law prosecutes.

^ It's not. Just looking for an update.

^ Speaking of Icelandic delicacies, what's the word on Sangub's court appearance yesterday? Anyone from the Minneapolis/St. Paul/Rochester area care to share?

^ Mi casa es su casa.

Warning: this audio contains language and material that may not be suitable for all audiences. And I'm not joking.

Ngonge, there are exceptions to freedom of speech which are classified as criminal acts (verbal offences). Examples: 1) Fighting words such as insults that have a likelihood to lead to immediate and violent response. 2) Patently offensive or obscene words (or images) 3) Slanderous and defamatory speech (which is also patently false) without carrying any literary value. 4) Malicious injury to character or reputation. Do you believe the cartoons of the prophet (pbuh) fall under any of the categories above? If you do, then you have no choice but to agree such speech cannot be protected under freedom of expression. I don't see why that newspaper shouldn't be taken to court by an able attorney and be faced with a libel suit.

^ First feed them some dog food to fatten them up. I'm so disgusted with the world today.

^ This is what I meant by full breach: Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage. Source