PDA

View Full Version : Freedom of speech and offending.



Rensch
5th March 2008, 8:06 PM
Well, there has been a lot of discussion here in Holland the past few weeks about Fitna (Arabic for tribulation), a short film made by Geert Wilders who is one of the members of our parliament.

In this film, set to release this month, he wants to show the danger of the Islamic faith and describes the Quran as being a fascist book.

Last summer Wilders wanted to forbid the Quran from being sold like Hitler's Mein Kampf, which he said the Quran and the message therein were comparable to.

Muslims accused him of discrimination and spreading hate against their faith as well as portraying all muslims as being religious extremists.

Muslim countries in Africa nad Asia responded with boycots of Dutch products and our government is affraid of new Danish cartoon-situations.

So what do you think, should this be allowed because of freedom of speech or is it discrimination, which is illegal according to our laws. And is it worth the risk of hatred against our country from Muslim nations


I personally believe this film should be legal, but I do not approve the message therein as there are many peaceful muslims that contribute to our society. Yet they are being criticised just because they are muslims. Also I don't think you can say you want total freedom of speech and forbid the Quran at the same time, it's hypocrisy.

Darkmaster Rannon
6th March 2008, 1:21 AM
OH NOS! muslim extremist LOL!

It is discrimination, first off not all muslims are crazy extremist willing to blow up in a crowd, notice how they kill non-extremist while in those crowds. I have seen muslims and they seem just like everyone else. (except with everyone being ***es to them.

A movie basically telling you "muslims are bad" is basically saying "hate muslims" thus promoting discrimination.

Profesco
6th March 2008, 1:27 AM
I think this Wilder would be better off finding a different venue for his views. The message of his film can and has been taken as a hate message, apparently. Films like those are seen often as sensationalist or alarmist. Perhaps the movie isn't a great idea.

BigLutz
6th March 2008, 2:36 AM
You know I am a major Free Speach advocate. I really see this as free speach, it may be hateful, but it would be the same if he decided to go after Christianity or even Scientology. It is his right to make what ever movie he wishes, and it is your right to buy it or not to buy it.

facetious
6th March 2008, 2:48 AM
Why would 10-year-olds care about freedom of speech? Nobody cares about them enough to listen to the amass ******** that seeps from their mouths.

CosmosSage
6th March 2008, 3:12 AM
I think the movie should be allowed to be shown, although I definitely disagree with its message and the idea of banning the Quran. The movie's audience should have the right to determine whether the movie's viewpoint is logical. By attempting to ban the movie, they are attempting to prevent the audience from hearing all points of view on the topic. If someone decided to come up with a movie on how video games are corrupting society, would it make sense for video gamers to attempt to get the movie banned because it disagrees with their point of view? It would instead make far more sense for the gamers to look at the movie, determine if its arguments make sense, and if not, refute them. Banning sources of information stops the public's knowledge from being challenged, causing it to become biased.

That being said, I think it's pretty ridiculous that he wants to ban the Quran because he notes similarities between it and Mein Kampf, and claims it promotes a hateful message. It's pretty much mirroring the critics of the film.

However, from what you've said about the film, it sounds like it may be less of a thought-out conclusion than a discriminatory film.

Hakajin
6th March 2008, 7:24 AM
I disagree with the tenets of the movie, but I do think it should be allowed to be shown. However, I do have a problem with the fact that it was made by a member of Parliament. He represents the government, and the government should be neutral in things like this. This could encourage hate crimes, which the government is supposed to protect against.

Rensch
6th March 2008, 10:39 AM
Wrong, he does NOT represent the government. His party is not a member of the coalition parties in the parliamnet that form the government. The Prime minister clearly stated towards muslim countries this movie is reflects the opinion about one MP, not the government.

The problem however is, that muslims see the Quran as the absolute thruth and the word of God. It is hard to accept for them that thruth is so clearly questioned. That is just something religous people always have a hard time to deal with, but apparently Islam still seems to have much more trouble with it than say, Christianty or Scientology.

The_Panda
6th March 2008, 7:22 PM
I think he should be allowed to say what he wants to say. There's a major difference between "Islam is a dangerous faith" and "All Muslims should be shot". Whether or not the film offends one group or another doesn't matter. But if the film is a clear effort to incite violence as the latter example is, it should not be shown.

j_hunter
7th March 2008, 7:04 AM
If it's not against the law, then he's perfectly entitled to release it.

Whether any cinemas will show it is a different question. The backlash from offended religious groups might wreak havoc on their PR.

SkinnySweatyMan
7th March 2008, 7:12 AM
You know I am a major Free Speach advocate. I really see this as free speach, it may be hateful, but it would be the same if he decided to go after Christianity or even Scientology. It is his right to make what ever movie he wishes, and it is your right to buy it or not to buy it.

Exactly. It's not like the creator is forcing anyone to watch it; people are choosing to, and if they get offended if they choose to do something, it's their own fault.

Hakajin
7th March 2008, 7:38 AM
Wrong, he does NOT represent the government. His party is not a member of the coalition parties in the parliamnet that form the government. The Prime minister clearly stated towards muslim countries this movie is reflects the opinion about one MP, not the government.

The problem however is, that muslims see the Quran as the absolute thruth and the word of God. It is hard to accept for them that thruth is so clearly questioned. That is just something religous people always have a hard time to deal with, but apparently Islam still seems to have much more trouble with it than say, Christianty or Scientology.

Really? But wait... he's in the Parliament, right? But his party is... I'm a little confused. Well, at least the Prime Minister made that statement.

In any case, I think the real problem is the extremists. There are a few bloody verses in the Quran, true, but they're not the foundation of the religion. I think most Muslims are peaceful, and hate it that they've been misrepresented.

Rensch
7th March 2008, 3:36 PM
Just to clarify:

We elect members of the parliament. The number of votes decides how many seats the party gets. Since we have a lot of smaller parties, unlike countries such as the USA or UK, we have to form a coalition because it never happens that one party has a majority of the votes on its own.

According to the results, the party leaders start talking to see if their programs can be compromised into one program. When that happens a coalition can be formed that has a majority in the parliament. That's the coalition that forms the government.

The opposition is formed by the other parties in the parliament. Wilders' party is one of those. But the PM's is one of the governing parties.

BigLutz
7th March 2008, 3:44 PM
The question I would like to know, is that if he is using his Government position to promote the movie. I mean if it is just a movie he made, one that he is putting in theaters or on store shelves, and nothing in the movie or trailers of the movie point to the fact that a member of the Government made it, or if he hasn't used his position to state that he has made a movie or to promote the movie. Then it isn't a problem of seperation of Religion and State.

Also really, by having people come out and talk about it, and sturring up such a fire storm. This movie is getting far more promotion than it otherwise would have gotten. That is the problem when people come out against movies and screams that it is offensive and bad. People are then drawn to that movie to go and see it and see what all the problems with it are.

Rensch
7th March 2008, 7:30 PM
Well, yeah, that is indeed pretty much what's going to happen.

The Edge
8th March 2008, 1:51 AM
I believe the government should refrain from all forms of discrimination, even against ideas that are currently taboo. That includes discriminating against those who discriminate- groups like the KKK, whom we can all agree have very twisted ideas, should be allowed freedom of speech and operation. Violence and crime in the name of those ideas, however, should be as illegal for them as for anyone else.

In short, society at large will always be filled with discrimination in some form or another. It's impossible for an impartial judge to distinguish between free speech and discrimination, simply because there are no impartial judges and there is no difference. The federal government, on the other hand, can uphold a single set of rules for everyone, regardless of ethnic group or personal beliefs.

JDavidC
9th March 2008, 12:39 PM
IMO, you need to reverse a lot of the Bible's teachings. I think that's what God does if you mess up, uber reverse psychology.