So you would like to enlist the assistance of Professor Harrow, so
that together you can crucify me for merely thinking a thought? My
freedom of expression?
On 14 Sep, 22:22, OLUWATOYIN ADEPOJU <toyinvincentadep...@gmail.com>
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 <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To moses,
>
> > re "intention is a tough thing to prove."
> > The effect/s, calculated or not is surely a measure of intent/
> > 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.
>
> > > 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"?
>
> > > > *"…the great religions of the world are stronger than any insults.
> > They
> > > > have withstood offense for centuries. Refraining from violence, then,
> > is
> > > > not a sign of weakness in one's faith; it is absolutely the opposite, a
> > > > sign that one's faith is unshakable" – Hillary Clinton**
> > > > *
> > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg <
> > > > corneliushamelb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> 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?aq=f&sugexp=chrome,mod=18&sourceid=chro.
> > ..
>
> > > >> 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
>
> ...
>
> läs mer »
--
--
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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment