[Free]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 01:50 PM, said:

csdenmark, on Apr 14 2006, 04:00 AM, said:

Here an example of censorship from number 1 nation of the free world.

no it isn't

Indeed, the world isn't free In ACBL land you can't even play most cool conventions most of the time

[mr1303]

The writers of South Park insult every group without any discrimination at all. Whether or not you're white, black, red, yellow, tall, short, fat, thin, clever, stupid, rich, poor (etc etc) at some point there's been a South Park episode insulting you.

So why they should pull the plug just because it's Islam being insulted rather than another group?

[keylime]

As I've been saying for a long time:

Are we going to stand up for free speech or submit ourselves to dhimmitude?

[pigpenz]

Free speech....there are some that cant even accept the fact that gnostic gospels exist little along a gospel of Judas.

[luke warm]

mr1303, on Apr 18 2006, 11:04 AM, said:

So why they should pull the plug just because it's Islam being insulted rather than another group?

maybe cuz white, black, red, yellow, tall, short, fat, thin, clever, stupid, rich, poor (etc etc) don't generally riot, loot, and burn over newspaper cartoons... why should they treat an animated cartoon any different?

Quote

Free speech....there are some that cant even accept the fact that gnostic gospels exist little along a gospel of Judas

what's that got to do with free speech? of course they exist... i don't know of anyone who would object to your saying so

[the saint]

mr1303, on Apr 18 2006, 04:04 PM, said:

The writers of South Park insult every group without any discrimination at all. Whether or not you're white, black, red, yellow, tall, short, fat, thin, clever, stupid, rich, poor (etc etc) at some point there's been a South Park episode insulting you.

So why they should pull the plug just because it's Islam being insulted rather than another group?

Exactamundo.

[helene_t]

mr1303, on Apr 18 2006, 06:04 PM, said:

So why they should pull the plug just because it's Islam being insulted rather than another group?

Well, it was a business decision.

Then again, it's scary how terrorist and rioters succes in scarring those of us who believe in free speech from standing by our principles. I think Western governments should take a clear position in favor of, for example, the Danish newspaper that published those cartoons. When necesarry offer them police protection and if they get scared anyway, use public broadcast to publish those works that the terrorists have scared private media from publishing (provided it meets the public broadcast's quality criteria).

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

[nickf]

the saint, on Apr 19 2006, 08:55 AM, said:

Exactamundo.

I havent heard that phrase since the last of the Happy Days re-runs were pulled.

nickf
sydney

[Impact]

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

[

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

Now that makes sense in ♠!!!

Of course, there is the small problem of doing that when the particular terrorist is dead and his (generic) avowed purpose was eliminating as many people as possible who fitted into his definition of enemy/infidel/unsuitable/not to be tolerated.....

but I take your point and agree: whatever is the stated aim of the terrorist group generally, to cave into them only encourages the terrorist activity as once successful, you go to the well again (ok not the particular suicide bomber)....

Certainly, in the sense that deliberate self-censorship of sensitive topics is sought, a policy decision to protect the publisher is virtually required (otherwise self-preservation suggests that many will determine that the risks are far too great). However, the risk in those circumstances, becomes that of conveying official sanction to what was only comment!

In short, while I agree with the sentiment I am remarkably unclear as to a mode for its practical implementation.

regards

[the saint]

nickf, on Apr 19 2006, 08:19 AM, said:

the saint, on Apr 19 2006, 08:55 AM, said:

Exactamundo.

I havent heard that phrase since the last of the Happy Days re-runs were pulled.

nickf
sydney

I believe it also appeared in Pulp Fiction. At some point Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) does utter the phrase:

Exactamundo, check out the big brains on Al!

If I'm in error, please feel free to correct me.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

sounds good, but how?

[mike777]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

sounds good, but how?

Why not offer them peace and understanding, give them everything they want?

[the saint]

mike777, on Apr 19 2006, 01:07 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 05:36 AM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

sounds good, but how?

Why not offer them peace and understanding, give them everything they want?

Yeah, by return of address. Then when we know where they live (Mr Bin Laden, Cave number 12, the Mountains, Afghanistan etc etc) - BOOM!!

Or is that the Loony Tunes way of doing it.

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

sounds good, but how?

By not letting them dictate government policy. Like "we publish whatever we want and we don't care if the terrorists get mad".

Of course, if their only goal is to kill a bunch of innocent people, my strategy won't work.

[Badmonster]

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 10:08 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 19 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

helene_t, on Apr 19 2006, 02:49 AM, said:

I believe the best way to fight terrorists is to let them know that they don't achieve anything.

sounds good, but how?

By not letting them dictate government policy. Like "we publish whatever we want and we don't care if the terrorists get mad".

Of course, if their only goal is to kill a bunch of innocent people, my strategy won't work.

Your strategy doesn't work. They achieve a great deal. 6 years ago how many people drove to airports wondering if the people they were going to meet would really show up? How many people walked into train statiions wondering if they'd walk back out? How many people knew what it meant to have the last thing they said to someone was pick up the dry cleaning when they sent them off to work, and then never saw them again? Or knew what it was like to go through all the photos they had of someone they loved to pick a picture to put on a flyer and print out 50 or a 100 or a thousand flyers and put them up on every surface that would hold a flyer next to hundreds and thousands of other notices bearing pictures of people who had gone to work one morning and would never come home and it didn't matter which photo they chose or how many flyers they put up because those people who went to work one morning would never be seen anywhere by anyone ever again, except in photos?

Terrorism is effective. And maybe the best way to defeat it is with consideration and humanity, because apparently guns, humor and free speech will not defeat or deter it. Maybe sensitivity and decency will work better. And if it doesn't wouldn't we rather go to work and get on planes having been decent and humane?

[barmar]

People who believe that everyone's life should be dictated by a holy book (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah) are in general not going to be big fans of free speech (anyone remember the Inquisition?). So you can't really expect to win them over with words -- they're part of the reason they hate us in the first place.

[asdfg2k]

Where is is written that being decent and humane is fundamentally inconsistent with defending one's way of life?

Being decent and humane means that those who are targets of terrorism attempt to specifically target those who are the perpetrators and their support systems. I assure you that there are a number of people who would much prefer to eradicate the problem by obliterating entire populations - until the message gets across.

There is actually precedent for considering the obliteration route as more humane. Many consider the atomic bombs which effectively ended the armed conflict known as World War II as being genuinely humane. Why? Because it has been shown that if the conflict was not brought to a halt when it was, more than one million people's lives were at risk. Would you trade 50,000 of the enemy's population in return for 1 million of your own?

We are generally and genuinely uncomfortable discussing the trading of life. As it is somehow barbaric. This is what gives those that practice terrorism succor. They are not.

Use google and look up how the Russian's responded to having their diplomat kidnapped in the Middle East. Have you wondered why there are very few Russion victims of fundamentalist terrorism? They certainly didn't practice what you believe to be a decent and humane response.

And you make the most telling statement when you proclaim that "...if it doesn't wouldn't we rather go to work and get on planes having been decent and humane?". My answer is an emphatic "no.". If it doesn't work, we have fundamentally forfeited our way of life. And no decent and humane activity on my part will make an appropriate excuse for your descendant's loss of our way of life.

What is good and great about our way of life is exemplified in this discussion. Can you imagine somebody in a fundamentalist setting speaking up and requesting that they modify their tactics to be decent and humane?

My guess is that it would be treated as if the person had just published a cartoon depicting an image of a certain prophet.

[Badmonster]

barmar, on Apr 19 2006, 11:22 AM, said:

People who believe that everyone's life should be dictated by a holy book (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah) are in general not going to be big fans of free speech (anyone remember the Inquisition?). So you can't really expect to win them over with words -- they're part of the reason they hate us in the first place.

I don't think this is entirely true. There are many wonderful tolerant and religious Christians Muslims and Jews. Religion doesn't inspire exclusion and vitriol. It does however make a great cover for those who are hate filled and malicious to hide behind.

[Al_U_Card]

Here is a thought. People who have "nothing to lose" tend to want things they don't have and "need". People with things they want and need tend to want to conserve and protect them.

So, accord all palestinians living in the concerned areas total Israeli citizenship with full rights, a homestead (parcel of land) and a credit for the building of infrastructure or commerce.

Now they will have something to lose......and things to protect from the fomentors of discord and terror. Utopian, I know, but interesting nonetheless and faster than the current internecine bloodfest they all call "surviving".

[han]

I just noticed this thread, I'm glad that other people have already pointed out that the network's decision not to broadcast this episode has nothing to do with government censorship.

I also agree with those that have expressed their disappointment with the current situation. I really regret that a consequence of violent response to these cartoons is that many people and institutions are now much more careful to express their opinions. I know of several Dutch comedians who have said that they joke about anything except the Islam. This has nothing to do with compassion, but is all about fear.

And while this is certainly understandable (I would also think twice before making a joke that might get me killed), I'd like to go back to the times where people would joke, write and draw about any subject they had something to say about.

Yes Deb, terrorism is effective (in the sense that it effects us), but are you really suggesting that we should sacrifice our free speech? I think your "consideration" for these terrorists goes too far.