Freedom of Speech




 
--
Boots
 
February 15th, 2006  
Ted
 
 

Topic: Freedom of Speech


In the past threads there was a lot of talk about the cartoons and the freedom of speech. It was an exaggeration and we had the right to publish what we wanted.

I found this link and wondered if there is a difference. Cartoons aren't pictures that's true. But infringement on the freedom of speech remains the same....... So; is there a difference?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...890809467.html
February 15th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted
In the past threads there was a lot of talk about the cartoons and the freedom of speech. It was an exaggeration and we had the right to publish what we wanted.

I found this link and wondered if there is a difference. Cartoons aren't pictures that's true. But infringement on the freedom of speech remains the same....... So; is there a difference?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/...890809467.html
I don't see how you are comparing the two.

Here, you have an article that quotes the US DoD basically saying, "you know, you guys really shouldn't show those images because they're harmful to soldiers serving abroad." They aren't burning embassies, or demanding the images be removed lest they face invasion or anything.

You've got a TV station broadcasting photos that may or may not be real and you've got a response from the DoD. Looks like neither side infringing on anyone's freedom of speech.

How do you figure there is any infringment on freedom of speech from this article?



February 16th, 2006  
Ted
 
 
They updated the link, so I can't quote what I meant. I was aiming at the direct interference with not getting the news out.
I do understand why they want it, but in the light of having no trouble showing the cartoons (which many didn't want) it struck me as odd. First you have troubles whatsoever, news can be spread. Then you try not to publish pics. I just the this attitude somehow not subsequent.

Maybay infrigement is too strong a word, so I'll turn it into "not subsequent".
--
Boots
February 16th, 2006  
Genghis_Kan
 
I don't think believe any country says they have freedom of speech. In Germany, people are not allowed to express their nazis view. In USA, people are not allowed to express their racist view. Eg recently a teacher in the US call a student "******" and he's got suspended. I mean why black people can call black people ****** while white people can't call black people ******. That's just not fair. I feel that in the Western soceity, we have freedom of speech to certain thing as long as they do not offend a lot of people inside their countries. U know the danish newspaper which show the cartoons decline to show another cartoon of Christ before hand. Because they think its not goin to be popular at home. This show how we in the western soceity only allow freedom to certain things but not other.

However, I do believe that we should fight for freedom of speech. But eventually us or the muslim have to back down, if not the conflict will never cease.

PS I am not a nazi + racist. I am just trying to make a point.