i don't know if this will answer your question or not.
i was living in senegal when the danish cartoons came out. prior to then wade had arrested one journalist and tried to get an opposition newspaper and its tv show stopped. there was an incredibly active opposition press, with half a dozen or more newspapers continually lambasting the president, and if ever there existed such a thing as freedom of the press, that was it.
when the journalist was arrested, there was a unanimous call for action against wade, and eventually wade backed down. the editorials calling for freedom of the press were stirring. as eloquent as any american calls for first amendment rights.
anyway, ironically, when the danish cartoon came out, not one of those newspapers defended the danish newspaper. in fact, it was the opposite: they all cried out against it, against the fact of publishing such a cartoon. then, quickly, the consequences followed, and there was violence in northern nigeria. the freedom of the cartoonist to express himself couldn't be separated from the fact that there were so many millions of people who would feel offended--people already feeling some pressures from a dominant western bloc that had joined to launch a truly gratuitous war against a fellow muslim community--that some hotheads were sure to be set off by the image.
suddenly the publication wasn't in denmark any more; it was everywhere where there were computers, and people could see it and feel it in its immediacy.
it was more than an act of indiscretion; it was a provocation that became an incitement.
if you knew that baiting someone you knew over some issue that that person was particularly vulnerable about would unleash an uncontrollable anger, say yelling that insult at the person in a bar in such a way as to humiliate that person deeply, and then that person went for you, and you fought back, what would the judge say when you both wound up in court?
i am not saying this is black and white; it is real, therefore gray
ken
On 9/14/12 3:52 PM, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU wrote:
Cornelius,
Are you supporting this strategy of Muslims using murder as deterrent?
Your comments suggest that.
Harrow, you dont seem to have picked up this line in Cornelius;' responses.
I would like a response on this from you too.
toyin
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Cornelius Hamelberg <corneliushamelberg@gmail.com> wrote:
To moses,
The effect/s, calculated or not is surely a measure of intent/
re "intention is a tough thing to prove."
intention?
In the case of the Danish cartoons, Lars Vilks, we have already seen
the effects and those who follow their footsteps know that they are
sure to wind up in the same hole...
On Sep 14, 8:19 pm, Moses Ebe Ochonu <meoch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken,
>
> We all know about the "fire in the theatre" exception to free speech. But,
> and this is a big but, there is a huge grey area here; it is not clear-cut.
> It often requires judicial mediation to determine what constitutes crying
> "fire" in a theater. Even in seemingly clear cases of "fire" in the
> theatre, the prosecuting authority still has to prove its case that the
> fire didn't exist or that the person yelling fire had no reasonable grounds
> or protected right to yell "fire." Hate speech, which this film clearly
> is, is protected under US law. I am not an expert on libel, but insulting a
> group or religion does not constitute "incitement," which is the exception
> in free speech--unless you can prove that the purpose of the material was
> to incite, which is impossible since intention is a tough thing to prove.
> Incitement is a high legal bar and is almost impossible to prove. There are
> many cases in the US and other Western countries where those who sought to
> prove incitement were unsuccessful. You'd have to prove that someone
> willingly put out material they KNEW would incite people or cause them to
> react violently. The lawyers can chime in here, but my understanding is
> that you cannot libel a group, that only individuals can be libeled or
> slandered. If this is true, then your notion of the film committing libel
> against Muslims is untenable. And even if this were so, is violence the
> appropriate response?
>
> The case of Hutu genocidal propaganda is clear-cut. I mean, you had people
> yelling "cut them," "kill the cockroaches," "burn their homes," kill their
> children," etc on radio. The film in question does no such thing, as
> abhorrent as its message is.
>
> The film is a poorly made, poorly delivered bigoted artistic product that
> insults a religion and its key figure, something that has been done to many
> organized religions for centuries and have not always generated violent
> backlash.
>
> Ultimately, the appropriate response to hate speech is counter-speech, a
> peaceful demonstration to register disapproval, or a boycott of the medium
> and messenger of the hate speech. It is not to hurt innocents and engage in
> violence, which then validates the caricatures inherent in the said hate
> speech.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > *"…the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults. They> On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:30 AM, kenneth harrow <har...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > moses
> > there is censorship of speech, in innumerable forms:
> > --shouting fire in a theatre
> > --what if the theatre is the society, and the "fire" is a libel that
> > wrecks someone's career, or even incites someone to kill that person? we
> > have laws against libel, and the measure is whether the speech damages the
> > person by the expression of false information
> > --what if instead of a person we are talking about a group? what if the
> > information were an incitement to kill that group? that is what happened in
> > rwanda with radio milles collines that incited the hutu population to
> > "shorten the legs" of the tutsis, i.e. cut them down; and to "send them
> > home," i.e. dump their corpses in the rivers.
> > under president clinton, the u.s. refused to support u.n. military actions
> > against radio milles collines, at any point, because it violated american
> > notions of free speech!
>
> > as a result of world war II, europe and canada instituted laws against
> > hate speech on the ground that it indirectly caused damage to individuals,
> > groups, and the society as a whole.
> > the u.s. hasn't instituted such laws, although hate crimes are a legal
> > concept, i.e. crimes that would entail greater sentences because of an
> > additional motivation of hatred for a group.
>
> > now, we have seen thousands of lynchings in the american south, hate
> > crimes, often based on lies. in combating these crimes i would be in favor
> > of criminalizing not only the murder, but the public utterance of a speech
> > that incites the lynching.
> > in saying this, i am speaking against american liberal notions of free
> > speech that are based on the idea that bad ideas ought to be combatted by
> > good ideas, bad speech by good speech, john locke's notion of liberalism.
> > but when the speakers are on an unequal footing, when one is a minority,
> > not in power of the government or press or radio, as was the case in
> > rwanda, the speech can function as an incitement, and can foment pogroms if
> > not genocides.
>
> > no freedom is absolute; all freedoms have to be hedged by other freedoms,
> > like the freedom from being attacked because you are a jew or a black
> > person. the historical consequences have proved locke wrong. in fact, he
> > was talking to and about english property owners, to the english
> > bourgeoisie. his concepts did nothing to insure the rights of the poor or
> > disempowered.
>
> > lastly, a video that expresses hatred of a religion is more or less the
> > same as one that expresses hatred of a person: islam after all is
> > constituted by muslims. i would agree that we should be free to attack any
> > and all ideas; but i would be comfortable in challenging the expression or
> > dissemination of such expressions if the circumstances endangered people.
> > an incitement can only be such if the circumstances realistically make it
> > feasible. to attack eskimos verbally as an evil group in a country where
> > they do not exist can't be an incitement to anything. but if they are
> > living under constrained circumstances, and someone urges on the population
> > to destroy them, that would be a speech i would want repressed.
> > ken
>
> > On 9/14/12 8:48 AM, Moses Ebe Ochonu wrote:
>
> > I agree with Hillary Clinton's statement below. To those who say "stop the
> > provocation" I have a set of simple questions: how do you do that, by
> > gutting the free speech tradition of Western societies? By imposing
> > censorship on provocative artistic productions? And once you start down
> > that road where do you stop? Will there ever be a time when the world is
> > free of bigoted provocateurs? How do you respond to them without
> > unwittingly validating the stereotypes and pathologies that inform underpin
> > their bigotry? How is hurting innocents and attacking the institutions of a
> > state that had nothing to do with the said bigoted speech a way to "stop
> > the provocation"?
>
> > have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then, is> > sign that one's faith is unshakable" – Hillary Clinton**
> > not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a
> > *
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
> > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:> >>https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro...
>
> >> Sir,
>
> >> I beg to agree with you completely. We live in a world of cause and
> >> effect. The solution is TO STOP THE PROVOCATION/s.
>
> >> On the subject of provocation we have that old Swedish dog, Lars
> >> Vilks, a pilgrim still tottering on his way to his life's final
> >> destination, the grave, still unrepentant and hell-bent with his
> >> provocations.
>
>> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> >> The latest news is of him speaking at an anti-Muslim rally in the USA,
> >> on 11th September of course:
>
>> >>https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chrome&ie...
> >> The enemies of Islam know what they are doing even if they want to
> >> disguise themselves as do-gooders who in the name of "freedom of
> >> speech", "artistic licence", " freedom of artistic expression ",
> >> "Human Rights"etc. want to bring the world of Islam in line and are
> >> determined to stretch the Ummah's patience and tolerance to a maximum,
> >> to absolute compliance/ agreement with them. They want the world's
> >> Muslims to accept and accommodate the belittling, the ridicule, the
> >> vilification, slander and defamation of the most beloved person for
> >> every Muslim, namely the Prophet of Islam, salallahu alaihi wa
> >> salaam.
>
> >> And then when Muslims react, they say Muslims are violent people...
>
> >> I should also like to observe that Muslims don't need non-Muslims and
> >> the kuffar to lecture us about the Almighty being
> >> "transcendental" (good word) nor do we need non-Muslims to plot new
> >> theological pathways for Islam in the crucible of 21st century
> >> existence,when they are not even familiar with the various schools of
> >> ilm al-Kalam, from the early days of Islam to the present...
>
> >> Make no mistake about this, some other religionists must feel a pang
> >> of envy when they see the millions of the faithful gathering every
> >> year at Mecca, for the hajj, women voluntarily in hijab, and above
> >> all, people prepared to die for their faith....
>
> >> As the late Bishop of Stockholm, Krister Stendahl said, we must leave
> >> some room for " holy envy"
>
>> ...
> >> Extending Oluwatoyin Adepoju's logic a little, perhaps it's not only
> >> Nigerian Muslims in Nigeria , who should not express their outrage by
> >> demonstrating – to extend his logic, Muslims world wide should keep
> >> quiet and abide by the knowledge that the enemies of Islam can do
> >> Allah no harm. But what about the reputation of Allah's prophet?
>
> >> The blasphemy laws in Judaism apply to the Almighty and the Almighty's
> >> alleged transcendence has not nullified those blasphemy laws.
> >> In Islam blasphemy extends to both the Almighty and his Prophets.
>
> >> An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth ( has usually meant
> >> compensation) but the tit for tat that Oluwatoyin
>
>
> read more »
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-- kenneth w. harrow distinguished professor of english michigan state university department of english 619 red cedar road room C-614 wells hall east lansing, mi 48824 ph. 517 803 8839 harrow@msu.edu
No comments:
Post a Comment