Are Muslims Wrong To Take Offence?

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

 

Inshallah everyone is in good spiritual and physical health. 

 

Putting aside what happened in Paris, a general point that many non-religious and secular people make is that people have no right to get offended, by which they mean, one cannot censor offensive speech on the grounds that it is offensive. 

Normally, we argue from a religious premise that certain offensive speech should be censored. For example, we resort to a hadith or a marja. 

But there is a good secular reason to believe that offensive speech is grounds enough for its censorship. 

The argument runs as follows:

 

 

 

All humans have a right to happiness.

Offensive speech makes some humans unnecessarily unhappy. 

Therefore, 

Offensive speech contradicts a human right.

 

 

 

Five objections might be posed to this argument.

 

 

First, that all speech is itself a human right. 

Second, that censoring offensive speech makes some people, the would-be offenders, unhappy.

Third, that offensive speech is necessary for a healthy society, e.g. in the form of social and political satire.

Fourth, that instances of offensive speech are controversial and therefore nobody has the moral and philosophical authority to judge on a national level which speech is offensive and which is not.

Fifth, not becoming president can make someone unhappy, therefore, to sustain the right to happiness, we need to make them president. (This objection has infinite forms, e.g. not winning at a football match makes someone unhappy, therefore, every football player has a right to victory; not becoming a millionaire makes someone unhappy, therefore, they should be made a millionaire, etc.)

 

*

 

 

Against the first objection, 3 points:

 

1st point, even if so, when rights clash, the more basic need trumps the less basic need.

Happiness is a more basic human need than speech, and therefore the right to happiness trumps the right to speech.

 

2nd point, happiness is a state and not an action, while speech is an action.

An action can be made to accord with a state, because actions are voluntary, while states are not.

Therefore, it is illogical to demand people not to get unhappy at an offensive speech, but it is logical to demand people not to make an offensive speech and make others unhappy.

Therefore, the right to speech must conform to the right to happiness.

 

3rd point, even if so, when rights clash, if the limitation of one right A to make room for the other B entails the non-existence of right A, then B is limited to make room for A. 

If the right to happiness is limited to make room for the right to all speech, this would entail that anything could be, in principle, continuously and publicly expressed, including things that make some people extremely unhappy and distressed, such as racial slurs or sexual cartoons, and this would mean that, under such a regime of rights, it would be tolerable, in principle, for some people not to enjoy the right to happiness at all.

But if this is in principle tolerable, it means that there is no right to happiness in the first place. 

Thus, the limitation of the right to happiness to make room for the right to all speech entails the non-existence of the former right.

As a result, the order should be reversed, and the right to all speech should be limited to make room for the right to happiness.

 

 

*

 

 

Against the second objection, 1 point:

even if so, the right of anyone to any thing is limited by the right of someone else to that thing. 

One's right to happiness is limited by someone else's right to happiness. 

This excludes the interpretation that one has the right to be happy in infringing on other people's happiness. 

This is similar to excluding the interpretation from the right to life, that one has the right to live at the expense of other lives. One may not murder a fellow human being, even if one desperately needs their organs for a transplant. 

 

 

*

 

 

Against the third objection, 1 point:

Something is necessary for an objective if there is no alternative route to that objective.

The objective is a healthy society, which the secularists claim is achieved through satire.

Now, satire is either a. necessarily offensive or b. not necessarily offensive. 

If b., then there is an alternative route to a healthy society, even through satire, without causing offence. 

If a., then this is tackled by this argument:

Offensive speech is either offensive so as to make a sociopolitical point or offensive for the sake of offence.

If the latter, then there is no sociopolitical point being made, and therefore this is not necessary for a healthy society - in fact, it is conducive to a sick one.

If the former, then the sociopolitical point can be made without giving offence, and therefore there is an alternative route to a healthy society.

 

Objection: the offensive tone is necessary for the effective communication of the sociopolitical point.

 

This objection is rejected by the following argument:

The offensive tone is effective either because it makes the point more convincing or because it attracts attention of people who would otherwise ignore the point. 

The former is false. Rhetoric does not make a point more convincing per se, but may make it more attractive; sometimes despite a lack of substance. This is not necessary, and is in fact anathema, to a healthy society. 

The latter might be true. However, attracting attention is not sufficient to allow offensive speech and infringe the right to happiness. Infringing the right to live, i.e. murder, might also attract attention and make a sociopolitical point (as we have seen done in recent years by people who have killed just to make a point to a country's government and population). However, effective communication of a sociopolitical point may not infringe the right to live. Thus, effective communication is not per se a reason to infringe the right to happiness. 

 

Objection: Effective communication is less important than life but more important than happiness. 

 

This objection is false. 

A people who are happy despite a ban on offensive speech is preferable to a people, some of whom are now and then unhappy because of a right to offensive speech.

This is because people live in order to be happy, and they dislike life insofar as it makes them unhappy.

Thus, the right to life is contingent on the right to happiness, and so if effective communication is less important than life, then a fortiori it is less important that happiness.

 

 

*

 

 

Against the fourth objection, 1 point:

Disagreement and debating another belief is not offensive, and most people recognise this.

Each language and each society recognises a number of expressions to be insulting, hurtful or offensive.

For example, words that fall under racial slurs are deemed to be offensive.

The decision-making body can be Custom, national or local, or what in Islam is called 'urf.

The Koran commands people to treat others as is ma'ruf, i.e. what is customarily considered good.

In criminal courts, judges have no problem leaving the decision on matters of fact to juries consisting of ordinary folk.

Why can't there be a public jury for deciding matters of custom?

It is not infeasible, and it is certainly reasonable, and given the arguments above, it is in fact obligatory.   

 

 

*

 

 

Against the fifth objection, 1 point:

Every right must be interpreted in light of reason. 

If anything makes some people unhappy unnecessarily, harmfully or in a manner devoid of any legitimate benefit, then there is no reason for the infringement of the right to happiness.

However, this is not the case for the examples in the objection, or examples of similar form. 

The system in which people elect their president as a singular representative and leader of their nation is necessary for its wellbeing and general happiness, and a system in which everyone could become a president just because they wanted to would be very harmful. 

The liberty given to two teams to compete against one another and entertain themselves, even if one loses at the expense of the other is in fact enforcing their right to happiness, because they are happy to compete, knowing the risk of losing. 

The economic system which is based on a just arrangement and does not gift people millions in money simply because they would be miserable otherwise is far more beneficial to the general wellbeing of the nation, because a fair economic system is more conducive to happiness than an unfair, random one.

Thus, the right to happiness is not as facile as these examples suggest.

The same principle holds for other similar examples, where someone is unhappy for not enjoying something which, if given to them for this reason alone, would negatively affect the general welfare and happiness of people.

 

 

 

 

***

 

 

 

So, on the merit of these arguments and my rebuttals to the objections, I say that Muslims are not wrong to demand respect, that nobody is wrong to seek the censorship of offensive speech, and that, on secular grounds, there should be a legal framework to implement this. 

 

Of course, this is academic, since this proposal is not actually being read by the policymakers in Europe. (Although it is likely being read, along with everyone else's posts, by their secret services)

However, I thought I would advance these arguments in defence of our meaningful grievance, which we should not abandon, despite the recent Parisian event. 

 

I would appreciate your thoughts. 

I have also posted an interesting commentary by a cartoonist on the recent event.

 

(wasalam)

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by Jebreil

[hasanhh]

(salam)

 

The middle panel of the bottom line:

 

Is that the new portrayal of "Christ the Redeemer" ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

:no:  No, but it could be politically contrived as such.

[:Sami II]

(bismillah)

 
(salam)
 
Jebreil
 
:Inshallah I hope this letter finds you well too 
 
All humans have a right to happiness.
 
The above statement is well founded in the Universal declaration of Human Rights , the United States declaration of Independence , and the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination to name a few.

 

As most of you were not a party to this constitution or declaration, therefore it does not apply to you.

Further more, you are not defined as human for the purposes of the legal definition when you contract yourself with the corporate entity that now represents all nations.

You are therefore deemed as a person , a citizen or a contract employee of the STATE. This is not the same as the human, thus losing all the rights and freedoms of the human and through consent and contract forfeiting all rights and freedoms given to the human.

The person , citizen or the contractor is under the ACTS and STATUTES of the STATE which it enforces when the above infringes on the public welfare.

The definitions of the above is there determined by the STATE.

 

In other words , by being born into a country today , by marrying in a country or by becoming a citizen of a country , you forfeit all you humans rights given to you by God , good men and good morals.

As all countries today are registered corporate entities ( private companies register under an exchange and commission authority in DC ) and you as the citizen have accepted the conditions of employment.

These conditions are in the form of ACTS and STATUTES which interprets and enforces what the STATE sees fit.

As a citizen or a person , you are subordinate to your employer the CEO or president, the commander in chief , and since we are in wartime , you are all deemed as combatants.

You do not have the right to happiness or have freedom , because during a war , you are given commands and liberty.

Liberty is not the same as freedom, as only a soldier or a sailor is given liberty, a pass to allow  a sense of freedom for a time given to you by your commander and chief.

Such arguments will soon be obsolete as the paradigm has shifted and all definitions and structures have changed.

This will be apparent in the next few years when such discussions will be not permitted due to an ACT or STATUTE that will be introduced.

 

Finally I would like to include something I have come across that is relevant to one of your cartoons.

 

(wasalam)

 

Edited January 12, 2015 by :Sami II

[monad]

I did not read all of it.

 

General populace is confused regarding freedom of speech and in particular, being highlighted with that image of Sine. Freedom of speech is controlled by the authority and they dictate what it actually is, during a particular period. Therefore, people should demand from anyone who uses that term to first be literate in knowing what it stands for, not to use doublespeak and be fair to it. Yesterday we had bibi netanyahu on the solidarity walk, his a terrorist, and yet walks along other leaders?, what does that tell you about the other leaders as well?. This is mind manipulation, where the so called freedom of speech writers, dictate who the terrorist is and who isn't. who we should stand with and who we should not etc.

 

Another good example of this, apart from the Gusson act, is media and Radio stations. You will get a plethora of racist Islamaphobs, who include atheists and men of other Abrahamic faiths calling and literally spewing their racist garbage in the name of freedom of speech, yet when a man of factual intellect calls and speaks his words, he is cut out, accused or the whole conversation is misdirected.

 

Regarding, censorship, of course its needed, because it falls on the boundaries of respect and peace. The same men who call for freedom of speech are the same men who take newspapers to courts when their private lives are put out in the public, or are said to have used anti-semetic terminology or used the N word, or are being sexist.

Edited January 12, 2015 by monad

[Noor al Batul]

"Freedom of Speech" is a myth. It doesn't exist. Neither does the freedom of the media- the media in France is controlled by the US, anyway.

I see people wjo encourage that more cartoons are drawm because "we can't let those terrorists win" - they seriously consider this their freedom. But on the other hand, if someone for example makes a caricature concerning Israel, it it not acceptable!

"The Sydney Morning Herald" published this and had to apologize for it:

http://honestreporting.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sydney-Morning-Herald.jpg

Same with a politician in SPD who made a comment on FB about how "America is a threat to the world's peace not Russia"- and was criticised for this on all sides.

So, yes, if people have the right to publish such cartoons, we have a right to get offended. But who cares for our rights?

Wa salam.

Edit:

Another good example of this, apart from the Gusson act, is media and Radio stations. You will get a plethora of racist Islamaphobs, who include atheists and men of other Abrahamic faiths calling and literally spewing their racist garbage in the name of freedom of speech, yet when a man of factual intellect calls and speaks his words, he is cut out, accused or the whole conversation is misdirected.

I know someone who wrote a really long comment on a German news paper (online) and tried to explain the Muslim side about the recent incidents. I think I don't need to tell you that the comment wasn't published - unlike all those Islam-bashing ones. And then, people complain that the Muslims don't take a stance... Hypocrites.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Noor al-Batul

[Christianlady]

Hello Jebreil,

 

I don't think Muslims are wrong for taking offense at insults to their beliefs. I think it's important though to forgive those insults and pray for those who insult one's beliefs. Maybe someday the person who insults will repent; God knows. It's possible a cartoonist that insults Muhammad may someday become a Muslim. I have heard of some people who were in the past very anti-Islam become Muslims, same as I have heard of some people who were in the past very anti-Christian become Christians. God knows the future. Anyways, what's important is how people react to insults. Insults can be a test God allows in order to help people grow.

 

For example, I was offended the first time someone told me that the Bible was corrupted. I don't believe that claim is true, but it offended me because in my opinion, that is an attack against God. God is not weak; He protects His Word. 

 

I had to take my offended thoughts to Jesus Christ, and see what he told his followers to do in such a situation. Jesus Christ says to forgive others (Matthew 6:14-15) and to love enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37), so that's what I did. I forgave and love that person. I would never dream of hurting that person, because God gave me love for that person in my heart, through Jesus Christ's commands. I grew a lot in my belief that day. It is amazing how insults to my faith brought me closer to my Creator and motivated me to please my Creator.

 

Because I love Jesus Christ, I strive to obey him (John 14:15). I'm not perfect; I have fallen in disobedience many times but am so grateful for God's amazing grace, mercy, forgiveness and love. I have never abused or tortured or killed anyone, and I pray I never do, because that would be disobeying my Creator. It is God's job to avenge, not mine (Romans 12:19).

 

So, it's not wrong for Muslims or any person to be offended. I understand why Muslims are offended at cartoonists mocking Muhammad. I personally am offended when cartoonist mock Jesus Christ. However, it would be wrong for me to kill or hurt a

person who offends my beliefs. Instead, I am to forgive and love them, which includes praying for them and doing good to them.

 

Peace and God bless you

[Haji 2003]

This isn't Charlie, this is Tim.

 

Tim Willcox apologises to daughter of Holocaust survivor at Paris rally for saying 'Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tim-willcox-apologises-to-daughter-of-holocaust-survivor-at-paris-rally-for-saying-palestinians-suffer-hugely-at-jewish-hands-as-well-9972840.html

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30786211

 

 

Will the Muslims initiate large demonstrations across Europe and the rest of the world in protest?

Or will they be silent like lambs who have learnt their lesson?

 

They are testing Muslim response. 

They will not rest until they humiliate Muslims in their souls as they have humiliated them in their countries, and until they have invaded their sensibilities as they have invaded their lands, and until they have stolen their faith as they have stolen their resources. 

I think there is a way between reckless violence and spineless silence, and it is demonstration in large numbers calling for an end to both violence and offence. 

May Allah support the umma in doing what is right.

 

وَلَن تَرۡضَىٰ عَنكَ ٱليهُودُ وَلَا ٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ تَتَّبِعَ مِلَّتُهمۡ‌ۗ قُلۡ إِنَّ هُدَى ٱللَّهِ هُوَ ٱلهُدَىٰ‌ۗ وَلئنِ ٱتَّبَعتَ أَهوَآءَهُم بَعدَ ٱلَّذِى جَآءَكَ مِنَ ٱلعِلمِ‌ۙ مَا لَكَ مِنَ ٱللَّهِ مِن وَلِىٍّ۬ وَلَا نَصِيرٍ

 

And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say; “Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance”. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper

 

almizan exegesis: http://www.al-islam.org/al-mizan-exegesis-quran-vol-2-allamah-sayyid-muhammad-husayn-tabatabai/suratul-baqarah-verses-120-123

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

Jebriel, welcome back!

 

Could you explain objection #4?

 

"

Against the fourth objection, 1 point:

Disagreement and debating another belief is not offensive, and most people recognise this.

Each language and each society recognises a number of expressions to be insulting, hurtful or offensive.

For example, words that fall under racial slurs are deemed to be offensive.

The decision-making body can be Custom, national or local, or what in Islam is called 'urf.

The Koran commands people to treat others as is ma'ruf, i.e. what is customarily considered good.

In criminal courts, judges have no problem leaving the decision on matters of fact to juries consisting of ordinary folk.

Why can't there be a public jury for deciding matters of custom?

It is not infeasible, and it is certainly reasonable, and given the arguments above, it is in fact obligatory.   "

 

I didnt understand what you meant with the word "Custom" or 'urf.  Also, is there not a public jury for deciding matters of custom?

 

"They are testing Muslim response."

 

Also for this ^, Muslims are also testing their own response as well. Regardless, your intentions sound good, so best of luck out there!

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

Thank you.

 

Custom (Arabic 'urf) would simply mean what the public customarily consider expressions of contempt, pejorative insults, and the like. 

Basically, in each community, certain words and actions are considered taboo or offensive, e.g. rude swear words. 

A community could require all publications and broadcasts to not apply these words and actions with respect to individuals, races, and religions. 

This could be regulated by a public jury which would base its verdicts on polls taken from the public on what words and actions are per se offensive and insulting in that community. 

An uncontroversial example is a racial slur. 

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

Ill give a hypothetical...

To understand your ideas, im gonna throw my ideas at you if thats alright...

 

If we have, say a comedy, that...ill give an example, a tv show called the niggas.  And its a comedy about a white family from a caucasian background with the last name, [Edited Out]. (This actually exists in skit form and some here on SC may already be aware of it), but lets say in US society its acceptable and people find it funny, while on the other side of the planet, people are offended.

 

Do you believe that the jury of the US should make the comedy unacceptable for the sake of not offending people on Africa (even if african americans of the US do not find it offensive)?

 

And how might matters of custom play a role in this situation?

Edited January 12, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

My proposal is only defined in the context of national legal systems, and with respect to the citizens of that state. 

This is because the fundamental sovereign entity in today's world is the nation-state. 

Everything else, whether local or global, derives its legitimacy from the nation-state.

 

(wasalam)

[Muhammed Ali]

This isn't Charlie, this is Tim.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/tim-willcox-apologises-to-daughter-of-holocaust-survivor-at-paris-rally-for-saying-palestinians-suffer-hugely-at-jewish-hands-as-well-9972840.html

 

He didn't even state it as his own opinion, but some have spun it that way.

[iCambrian]

So, if you have our current world, where people of the US, african americans in particular, are not offended by the "white folks with the last name of a potentially derogatory title related to african americans" show and the public jury of the US accepts the show...as non offensive.

 

Then with this "that nobody is wrong to seek the censorship of offensive speech, and that, on secular grounds, there should be a legal framework to implement this."

 

Do you believe that africans in Madagascar for example, could seek the censorship of the [Edited Out] show? Or Censorship in their own sovereign nation state only or?

Edited January 13, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

Morally, the Africans in Madagascar can seek to influence a country, through various diplomatic means, to take certain policies or alter certain laws. 

My discussion is about legal rights, albeit derived from moral premises.

Legally, every nation-state is sovereign and may do as it wants, limited only by its own commitments. It is not legally bound by the opinions of other nation-states.  

In the context of my proposal, a nation-state is bound by the 'customary opinion' of its own citizens, and that is all.

More accurately, the nation-state binds itself to the 'customary opinion' of its own citizens.

I say 'binds itself', because sovereignty means self-legislation, i.e. ultimately, nobody has the [legal] right to legislate for the nation-state; the nation-state legislates for itself.

Non-citizens and other nation-states are irrelevant. 

 

 

(Wasalam) 

[iCambrian]

Ah ok.

 

So if "Non-citizens and other nation-states are irrelevant", how can you say "Muslims are not wrong to demand respect", with respect to France and ISIS, for example? Im not necessarily disagreeing, just trying to figure out what youre saying.

[:Sami II]

 

 

I think there is a way between reckless violence and spineless silence, and it is demonstration in large numbers calling for an end to both violence and offence. 

 

(salam) 

 

In the current matrix , there is no other way till the :Imam (as) comes.

It is a game set and the outcome already determined.

It is a perfect business plan in motion heading towards its final stages.

Those who protests peacefully or violently or take any other option will contribute to the same result.

 

the rule of law

 

your participation either with consent or through objection is deemed as applied consent.

 

eg. when you are in court , your silence is considered a yes through applied consent  , and your objection in a manner unfit for the court is also deemed as applied consent.

You are under their rule by allowing yourself in their court.

When you are in court , and when the judge enters , all must rise and give consent and rule over you.

for those that don't rise and disobey him, by default you are under his rule.

so what do you do ?

don't sit in the first place therefore you do not need to rise as you are already risen at your own will , and when everyone sits you may sit as this was not the order.

Better still , do not be there in the first place.

 

The algorithm has been created to allow for all above possible scenarios and counteract them.

There is one way out of this perfect plan of theirs, and I have discussed this in my threads.

 

(wasalam)

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

sami

 

Yes, though your analysis is unhelpful when we are discussing a community. 

A community can be compromised by the actions of some of its members.

Suppose it is your community.

When the judge arrives, some of your associates have already sat while you have stayed standing.

They will be required to rise by law, and when they disobey they are punished.

Then, when everybody sits, then you also sit, because, as you said, there was no order to sit, and so you are neither obeying nor disobeying.

But then the judge wishes to see if the rest of you have learnt from the fate of your friends. He makes a new law that your community should rise. Here, either you obey, which means you are tamed, or you disobey, which means you will be punished. 

So, indeed, there is no alternative except to leave, which is practically impossible for the community in question. 

 

However, there is value in the protests of an oppressed and defenceless people, as long as it is done with dignity. 

Here, the Shi'a have great role models. Impressively, the two greatest examples are women.

 

(wasalam)

Edited January 13, 2015 by Jebreil

[:Sami II]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Jebreil 

 

Such solutions whilst impossible to implement within the constructs of macro-communities, can be more effective within a micro-comminuty paradigm.

A micro-community may consist of yourself, your wives, children and other extended family members.

This model is already being practiced at various levels within many other communities with varying belief systems.

However they all have a general theme of self-suffiecncy, peaceful living and preparing for some major paradigm shift.

Many of such communities comprise of wealthy ex professionals that want to escape the current system and live an alternate lifestyle with freedom and peace.

Some have invested billions of dollars with state of the art , technological advance innovative underground cities to a simple subsistent type hobby farms consisting of patch of land in which chickens, fruits and vegetables are grown by a bunch of hippy communes.

There is a :Sunni project on the way recently in Malaysia.

No :Shias are doing such things that I'm aware of.

 

The platform for protests as shown by our beloved women from the holy household of our :Rasool (as) are not longer available.

In those days , they did not have social media, TV , internet and the real time broadcasting capabilities as today.

The :Umayyad's (L)  "propaganda machines" were not real time and omnipotent as today.

We have a different playing field which operates on a monopoly with precisely scripted narratives before the event.

Any mobilisation towards competing with such networks is futile.

This attempt also disturbs the "apple cart" and we know where that leads to.

I have come to this conclusion after many discussions amongst the elites who want out, as some of them are not happy with all that is going in the world and where we are all heading.

The real reasons for all that is happening today is not what most of you think it is.

I'm sure an intelligent brother as yourself can read between the lines here.

 

(wasalam)

 

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

All major Western countries have significant numbers of Muslim citizens. 

As a result of my arguments, those citizens have a right to respect. 

 

(wasalam)

sami

 

Thank you for your contribution.

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

It sounds like you're basically describing a democracy jebreil, when you talk about "custom" and urf.

And with that, I agree that it seems fine if people within a state, protest for something. But I wouldn't go as far to say that people or ideas or cartoons or criticism etc, should be censored for the sake of protecting the opinions of a few.

Next thing u know the kkk and flat earthers and Mormons start complaining, and one after another, censorship takes over.

For objection #3, freedom of speech, theoretically could benefit the right to happiness as well.

For example, if Mormonism is criticized by the comedy, the Book of Mormon, while some may appear unhappy after being criticized, society may ultimately be happier, knowing that Jesus wasn't born in Kentucky.

 

And if, hypothetically, all forms of criticism, whether comical or soft or heavily insulting, were all censored...it sounds like you would have a heavily speech regulated nation. Where even jerry seinfeld would be thrown in prison for using the phrase "soup nazi".

 

Edited January 13, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

But I wouldn't go as far to say that people or ideas or cartoons or criticism etc, should be censored for the sake of protecting the opinions of a few.

 

You are conflating ideas and criticism with cartoons and mockeries. 

The two are distinct. 

My proposal argues for the toleration of the first and censors the second.

 

 

For objection #3, freedom of speech, theoretically could benefit the right to happiness as well.

 

I have formulated this objection in points 2 and 3, and have rebutted them in the text.

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

You are conflating ideas and criticism with cartoons and mockeries. 

The two are distinct. 

My proposal argues for the toleration of the first and censors the second.

 

 

 

 

There is a very fine line between the two depending on the scenario. In this world, i think we would have a very difficult time knocking down one without impeding on the other.

 

Also, you would have a society void...essentially void of comedy where nazis could be offended and have shows like seinfeld censored. 99% of comedians would be fined or imprisoned. Or perhaps they wouldnt exist at all.

 

Often cartoons are just that, they are legitimate criticism, in the form of satire.

 

This is probably what it comes down to ^

Edited January 13, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

There is a fine line with many things, many of them significant.

E.g. minimum age of consent, illicit sexual material.

Custom determines them. 

 

Also, offensive cartoons are not just legitimate criticism, because criticism is not always satirical, and satire is not always offensive to the identities of groups of people. 

Since criticism can be subdivided and cartoons fall under just one subdivision, it follows that offensive cartoons are criticism plus an extra thing. 

By my arguments, the extra thing renders that kind of criticism illegitimate. 

 

The middle paragraph of your post does not argue anything, so I cannot respond. 

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

Youre giving an argument that on paper sounds legetimate, but it would be impossible to implement in reality and would annihilate comedy as we know it, world wide.

 

a million people would never sensor their voices, nor a good laugh in favor of a nazi. And a cartoonish criticism wouldnt mandate a nazi becoming unhappy, even if the nazi were insulted.

 

check this out

 

http://articles.mcall.com/1998-11-30/news/3223295_1_cartoon-rugrats-worthwhile

 

Should a nationally popular childrens cartoon be censored because a minority finds its title offensive?

Edited January 13, 2015 by iCambrian

[.InshAllah.]

Salams Jebreil, its good to see you back. 

 

The Conservative Party in the UK wants to introduce legislation that would ban offensive 'extremist' speech that is non-violent. 

My worry is that the argument based on the right to happiness justifies a government in silencing Muslims when it comes to beliefs about hell, the immorality of sex outside marriage, the immorality of homosexuality and many other things.

Many secular people find these beliefs offensive.  Maybe one day most of them will, and so it will fall under 'urf. 

 

What would you say to that?

[iCambrian]

With urf, would there need to be a majority vote in order for censorship to be implemented? Or could a minority cause censorship?

In which case, a minority could protest in Iran over what they feel is offensive scripture, thereby censoring society from the Quran.
And if only a majority vote is relevant, then this just sounds like everyday democracy. People already vote based on what is offensive and what makes us happy (at least where i live, so far as i can tell).

Edited January 13, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

Does comedy need to be racist or sacrilege to be comedy?

I deny your claim that it would kill comedy; comedy does not need to denigrate people or what they consider sacred, and certainly good comedy is clever, not childish.

 

As for your second post, it has nothing to do with government, and so it has nothing to do with democracy. 

The public jury does not say what can be mocked and what can't be. 

Rather, it says what words or expressions or productions are per se taboo and indecent. 

It then follows that these words, expressions or productions may not be applied to groups. That is all. 

 

Inshallah

 

Thank you akhi karim. 

 

To your question: vote Labour. 

 

Joking aside, my proposal is not that certain beliefs can be censored by custom, but that custom decides what words, expressions or productions are in themselves taboo and indecent. 

Coupled with the right to happiness, this means that the application of these words, expressions or productions to people would be censored should these people exercise their right to happiness by proving in court that they have been offended and that the words, expressions or productions were taboo and indecent as decided by the jury. (obviously, these words, expressions and productions must be in the public domain, where regulation is possible).

The courts will then decide for any case brought to their attention whether or not the censorship was according to custom, using all the usual rules of their jurisprudence. 

I am very much against the censorship of truth-apt statements, and those which you mention are truth-apt. (Unless one believes in moral non-cognitivism)  

 

(wasalam)

Edited January 14, 2015 by Jebreil

[iCambrian]

I think your ideas sound a lot like demoncracy Jebriel, and while i agree that comedy can exist without being racist or sacriligious, when it comes to being offensive, comedy can easily take the cake.  Even the most innocent of comedians can and do at times make statements or perform actions that could be viewed as offensive.  Hence the seinfeld example and the rugrats example.  Theres are very innocent shows, but could be viewed as offense. In which case, it sounded like you were proposing that maybe they ought to be censored.

 

But if this urf, is about what the majority thinks, then i dont see it as particularly different than democracy.  People do essentially vote on what is taboo and what is not already.

Edited January 14, 2015 by iCambrian

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

Democracy is a theory of government.

I am not advancing a theory of government.

My model is the jury in the court of law; they do not make or interpret the law.

They just ascertain whether it should be applied to the facts of the case before them.

Of course, there is a democratic spirit in this, but in a very loose sense, i.e. in the sense that people as a whole participate somehow in the governance of themselves. 

But by that standards there is some democracy in Saudi Arabia. 

However, very nearly all modern democracies do not have people voting to decide issues like this. 

Rather, people elect chambers to make law, because they live in a representative democracy. 

I believe in bringing this power to the people, in the form of random juries for minor matters and the form of referenda for major matters.

I have great respect for direct deliberative democracy.

 

(wasalam)

[iCambrian]

Ah ok.  How do you believe this jury should be elected themselves?

[guest102317]

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

At the moment, I think the jury should be a random selection of people, a large enough sample of the population, to guarantee the best results, and that this selection should take place every few years, to keep up to date with changes in language and production.  

 

The goal is to reflect customary views on words, expressions or productions that are taboo and indecent. 

So, if some other mechanism is more effective in transpiring this goal, it should be preferred.

 

(wasalam)

[.InshAllah.]

Salam jebreil, thanks for clarifying

 

So your proposal would not censor the following types of statements (which are offensive to many people) :

 

- Churchill was a prostitute

- George Washington was a paedophile

- Mother Theresa was a murderer

 

I do not believe that any of these statements are true. 

 

They are all offensive to many people, but they are capable of being true or false, and hence cannot be censored as per your proposal.  What about cartoons depicting the above?  My first thought was the cartoons are not truth apt.  But cartoons can represent truth-apt propositions.  For example, you can have a cartoon depicting any of the above.  If this is the case, is not pretty much every cartoon truth-apt, including the ones ridiculing our Prophet ?

 

The only speech I can think of that is clearly not truth-apt is that which expresses our feelings and wishes towards people, such as 'Boo xyz!' and 'May xyz die a horrible death'.

[Chair Pundit]

Jebreil

 

Would you accept, albeit grudgingly, the verdict of these randomly selected juries if they opt for turbocharged freedom of expression in order to err on the side of caution, in the probable case that the right to freely express could be undermined severely if a whole variety of issues equally end up being micromanaged?

Because, ultimately, the people who are selected impartially and randomly to sit in these juries would not constitute a majority of the population. Thus, there would also be the case of a potential backlash by the majority; a reaction the government of the day would inevitably have to respond to so as to maintain their position and popularity.

[Chair Pundit]

Jebreil

 

Would you accept, albeit grudgingly, the verdict of these randomly selected juries if they opt for turbocharged freedom of expression in order to err on the side of caution, in the probable case that the right to freely express could be undermined severely if a whole variety of issues equally end up being micromanaged?

 

Because, ultimately, the people who are selected impartially and randomly to sit in these juries would not constitute a majority of the population. Thus, there would also be the case of a potential backlash by the majority; a reaction the government of the day would inevitably have to respond to so as to maintain their position and popularity.