 |
| "Free Speech Doesn't Mean Careless Talk" - NARA - 513606 (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
At Islam is Nazism with a God I gave an answer to the question on what I thought of her concern for freedom of speech.
A video is presented on that site and like on may sites we can find several remarks and find lots of sayings of which we can agree with or not. On the internet is a lot to find by which we can or do not want to interact with people face to face. In most instances people get to see and react to texts of people we don’t see and in most cases even don’t know them.
The danger of such encounters is that such visits to different websites as well as message boards may give the visitor not the feeling they really are talking with other human beings who have their feelings like we do have ours.
N.S. Palmer who has degrees in mathematics, economics, philosophy, and
biology and is currently affiliated with Hebrew College, blogs for The Jerusalem Post and The Jewish Journal as well as his own blog where he writes
Perhaps it is that knowledge of not having to face that person and of being sure that we shall not encounter that person in real life, that gives for some the permission to do impermissible acts.the people we encounter on the Internet seem less real to us than those we meet in person. As a result, we tend to take them less seriously as human beings. We are less inclined to worry about hurting their feelings or treating them unjustly. Quite realistically, we are also less likely to worry about arguments leading to physical confrontation or retribution.
Often it is that anonymity which lets forget many that they should be talking decently and act politely to the other on the other end of the line.
It is like the professor says, that we
We are sitting in our homes where nobody can see us. We are less inclined to feel shame if we do something hurtful.{Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}It is that non-seen other, which makes so many chatters or internet users, to forget all decency and respect for the other.
Occasional anger and frustration make take on appropriate forms. Bottled up rage many let their steam go off when they get on the computer.
Then, some of us have a rage-fest.{Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}
When we had the MSN Groups it started already to go the wrong way, people forgetting any decency, norm and values. Today it did not change for the better. The opposite, it became even worse, and many seem to take certain words or language for normal.
We seem to find more and more people who resort to insults, name-calling, and other kinds of online vitriol. In a way they sometimes go so far we feel pity with them because they can not control their feelings nor their anger, which shows us how frustrated they are. Luckily we know they are either venting anger that has nothing to do with us, or they are deliberately trying to goad us into a screaming match.
Ignore them. A long-standing bit of Internet wisdom applies: “Please do not feed the trolls.” {Why Are People So Mean on the Internet?}When we look at what is said on the internet, and see how many lies are told or how many are raging about, without any blush on the cheeks, we could wonder how much we should allow and how far Free speech may go.
Here you may find my remarks I made on the video Islam is Nazism with a God and on the presentation of it on America: The Good and the Bad
°°°
°°°
Brooke Godlstein looks at those people who shout they are Hamas. Their actions may have us wonder how far Free Speech goes. Can we allow negation of the Holocaust? Can we allow people to cry for hatred against one or another nation or race? the same could be asked about the allowance of money entering a coutnry for funding of certain organisations, be it right wing (Nazi, extreme Jewish/Christian or Muslim fundamentalism) or extreme left wing (extreme Marxism or Communism).
How far wants one to go to allow free speech when it is known that those speakers are funded by terrorist organisations and also steer to terrorist acts?
I think when a organisation wants to dominate and not allow an other to have the right to speak it should be counter acted. They should be able to have their say but others should have the right to react to them as well. But here the State or Government has a duty to fulfil to have everything under control and to watch those who want to dominate others and could endanger our society. As soon as the secret intelligence encounters dangerous elements they should make them public and show all in the nation who those ‘preachers’ or ‘speakers’ are and what they do plus what the danger of them for the nation is.
Pamella Geller is right to say we need to talk about this. Everything should be considered and spoken off. It would be wrong to allow only one party a voice and to censure an other.
A State have to assure all its citizens that they all have the right to look at something, to study something, but also to criticise something. As such Judaism, Christianity but also Islam should be able to judged and criticised by the citizens of the nation, being them atheists, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists or from other religions. all sorts of religions and nor religious group should be able to be put under the magnifying glasses.
Though we do have to be careful not to call all religious people or non-religious people savages. At the moment there is a tendency to declare all religions awful and the cause of evil. In Europe, and probably also in many parts of America, many think religion is the cause of evil, and everything has to be done to stop religious awareness. In North America the many Christians would cry high from their tower, but by their heavy actions against other religions they could cause the same reactions as we now have to undergo in Europe.
The interviewer of Geller shows she understood the Quran and the meaning of Jihad = struggle. Geller her perspective of that Jihad or her view of holy war is not the view of the bible nor the quaran wich both speak about the holy war which has already gone on for ages (spoken of in the Torah, Prophets, Hebrew Writings, Greek Writings, Quranic verses).
Geller telling that christians would not behead others in the name of Christ does not seem to know her history nor the present Asian situation where still such things happen today. Even in the States of America we can find people like the Westboro Baptist Church who shout hate and hurt other people a lot. In the States there have been also Christians who said they were against killing the unborn but did not mind killing doctors who worked at abortion clinics. That are also Christians who bring damage to others in the name of their religion. The same we can find fundamentalist Jews who kill others, so called in the name of their religion. Look at what happens in Israel and how certain fundamentalists take in the land of others and protect their settlements with violence.
But please do not forget that politician violence and non-religious related violence is still the most common violence. The majority of terrorist acts have nothing to do with religion. The majority of believers in the different religions, pagan or not pagan, preach for self-development in a peaceful atmosphere.
We do not have to abridge or stop our free speech for not offending any body, be it savages or even civilised human beings who think differently. When not having the same idea it will always be possible to have a conflict of ideas and can there be the possibility to offend some one. That is part of the consequences of free speech, we have to endure or to allow.
When Geller talks about savages and savagery would she consider the native American as savages, like her ancestors did or would she recognise that many Europeans who came to conquer the country of those natives behaved as savages? Did she ever thought of the fact that certain Muslims may consider those white people who live there in the North American halfround, who fornicate and have no good morals, could also be considered savages today by other nations or peoples?
The indigenous people of America had also their own civilised rules of conduct and way of life, which came disturbed by the colonial intruders. the same for the white Europeans who conquered spaces in the Southern halfround of this globe. In the name of Christ they also oppressed many peoples and pushed their own believes and faith into their throat. Many so called Christians even did not mind to take people captive and rape and sell them, not even interested if they would die in bad circumstances or not.
Perhaps it would not be bad to reflect on the similarity of the early crusades and collonialisation with the present crusade of certain Muslims or Arabic peoples.
It is true that we have a problem today which many try to avoid or to go out of the way, thinking it would go away by not talking about it. Not talking about it is wrong. We just should do everything to have it possible to talk about those issues and to have clear voices showing all the issues and how certain people could be a danger for the community.
Though each person who wants to bring something in debate and wants to talk against something, like being against a book or movie, should have knowledge of that book or move. Not like Geller not having seen the trailer nor the movie. And a trailer can not even say it all. When one wants to be against something the person has to know what he or she is against, and as such should have had contact with it, read or seen it. today we do find too many christians who are against the Quran because they think certain things are standing in that book, because they only heard the false preachers misusing that book and twisting verses. The same about several Christians who do not know their own Scriptures, often never having read the full Bible, from A to Z, but in the ban of false teachers who only present verses taken out of context and looked at from human doctrine.
the interviewer has good reason to say that when Geller wants to take on this issue we would expect to have her taken interest in that issue and having studied it. She telling it does not mater and she did not need to know … proofs she only wants to take her own idea and wants others to go for her restricted ideas only, not needing to have the real truth of what is all behind it or how it really is and who is really spoken about.
She is right to say we do not have to like what is said, because that is freedom of speech, but than she too should allow others the same right to have that freedom, to talk like she does about things they seem not to know so well. It is for others then to come in to the circle of debate and show both parties that they might have it at the wrong end of the stick.
Personally I thing, and certainly for politicians, those who have a higher position in society or have a special role in a community, should take up their responsibility and to look at things in a honourable and humble way, trying to stay correct to the matter, having looked at it seriously, in honour and conscience. It is the task of a politician to know the subject, to have studied it before speaking about it. She has to take care that she or he is honest to both parties involved and try to enlighten all, with showing what can be known and trying to uncover what is hidden for the public.
Geller considers herself as the messenger, but she forgets or does not want to see she herself is excluding the freedom of speech for those who do not agree with her or have an other view. She also seems not willing to see that the media have an important role to play in show both sides of the medal. The media also has to bring the voices of all parties involved. That is also part of the freedom of speech, and giving the public the right to come to their own conclusions, without imposing their own views (hopefully – though all media stations are naturally influenced in a certain way or have a certain starting view).
Nobody may be couched in silencing the voice of freedom of speech.
+++
