tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627613231977586493.post7899864215822279071..comments2023-09-26T07:18:28.001-07:00Comments on Can You Walk on the Rice Paper?: Yale University Press & Freedom of ExpressionSingapore Dividend Collectorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02984990866059977120noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627613231977586493.post-24757058514672432132009-10-20T09:26:44.197-07:002009-10-20T09:26:44.197-07:00I can agree only until it was someone I loved with...I can agree only until it was someone I loved with their eyes piercing the screen of my TV, reading an auto-cue written by men with masks. The game changes shape then.Singapore Dividend Collectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02984990866059977120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627613231977586493.post-10791063575557608222009-10-20T06:38:36.958-07:002009-10-20T06:38:36.958-07:00"In theory an individual or group could be se..."In theory an individual or group could be seen as the aggressor and perpetrator when in actual fact, they were upholding their right to freedom of expression."<br /><br />I quote this from you and reply that, yes, indeed, this is how things are being viewed in this era. Rationality has been thrown out the window with the dirty bathwater and all that remains is insidious madness.<br /><br />Indeed sir, to quote you again, "In reality, this kind of childish bickering results in the capitulation to those who use violence and the threat of violence, to silence those who are doing nothing more than exercising their legal right to free and open speech."<br /><br />This is exactly what certain groups want to do to free-thinking, freedom-loving peoples. They have infiltrated our societies and destroyed them from within.<br /><br />I personally stand with President Reagan's policy: We do not negotiate with terrorists.<br /><br />Because, as you said, when you capitulate to violence it validates their violent methods. And of course, this means they'll use their methods again, because it works.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935896263961446099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627613231977586493.post-20831756530918848512009-08-19T20:37:54.033-07:002009-08-19T20:37:54.033-07:00Alex,
I wholeheartedly disagree.
By your reason...Alex,<br /><br />I wholeheartedly disagree. <br /><br />By your reasoning you are saying that we should keep all of our opinions private, on the off chance that we might offend someone. I think this is a very dangerous place to go. In actual fact it sounds a bit like living in North Korea.<br /><br />Religious cartoons in a Scandinavian country may cause some offense to radical elements, but we have to defend this right to free expression. Where will it end if everyone takes such an attitude. <br /><br />"I am devoted to that football team and I'm deeply offended by that newspapers comments, in fact I am going to burn down your office if you don't listen to my demands." <br /><br />In reality, this kind of childish bickering results in the capitulation to those who use violence and the threat of violence, to silence those who are doing nothing more than exercising their legal right to free and open speech.<br /><br />This is the age of 'the image' and images there will be, like it or not.<br /><br />The original Muslim ruling for not allowing images of the prophet, was so that the pious would not worship images of the messenger at the expense of Allah. These ruling or Fatwas do not apply outside a group of believers and furthermore, should not see the non-believer silenced as a result.<br /><br />It seems that from what have said the age of satire is dead and gone. <br /><br />The rot needs to be stopped.<br /><br />MikeSingapore Dividend Collectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02984990866059977120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8627613231977586493.post-54067095966030315032009-08-19T20:18:04.567-07:002009-08-19T20:18:04.567-07:00hmmm
where do i start. images of mohammed are as ...hmmm<br /><br />where do i start. images of mohammed are as offensive to muslims as tiocfaidh ar la is to protestants. it is like someone shouting in your face that your missus is a slut. would you put up with that? i know i would not. it is very hard for non muslims to understand just how offensive depicting the prophet is. we have the right to freedom of speach and i would defend that to the death. But to run a competition asking for people to do something which a vast proportion of the worlds population find offensive is rediculous. The newspaper really should have thought about what it was doing before it did that. In my eyes, they are respnsible for the deaths that occurred. we really cannot walk around the place saying what we think all the time. do you tell everyone you see who is ugly that they are ugly? no. the same goes in this case. just because you dont agree that depicting the prophet is offensive, you really should bear in mind that a lot of people think it is and to do so will cause trouble. freedom has to be balanced with responsibility.<br /><br />alexSingapore Dividend Collectorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02984990866059977120noreply@blogger.com