Osama Bin Laden has promised another, fresh attack on American soil...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11452123/

And now there is a $1 Mil reward for the deaths of the cartoonists that has the middle east all upset. According to Fox News, they are under police protection. Whatever good that will do them...

Just my opinion, but I think that this whole cartoon thing is getting completely out of control. It's a free speech issue, for crying out loud.

I agree, but we are talking about a people that has a very strong religion background, and people that will kill themselves because they do not tolerate people making fun of them. The cartoonists should have known better than to make fun of their religion, of all things...

Obviously those cartoons were a bit crass and the authors were probably aware that there was going to be a negative response. But it is a free speech issue, and they have every right to express those opinions. I think it's ridiculous that such a large portion of the Islamic world is in uproar about them - after all, they have it coming to them when a significant (or at least highly vocal) part of their constituency preaches that Western civilization should be burned to the ground.

My feeling towards Islamic conservatism/fundamentalism is the same as it is towards Christian fundamentalism. Cultural values and tradition do not justify self-repression, hate-mongering, intolerance, violence and narrow-mindedness. Religion cannot just be a wall to hide behind every time your actions harm another human being.

I agree with you, but they should have still known that you don't make fun of someone's religion, and not expect to get some sort of a very negative response...

As Westerners we defnitely do have this opinion, but sometimes I wonder if they can _all_ really hate us that much or that's just a vocal faction. Ideas?

It might be the terrorists using this as an excuse to launch an attack...

Probably not, but I think that oppressive Islamic conservatism is widespread.

Yeah, I think you're right about that. :S

I remember hearing in the news that many magazines/newspapers were asked by the authors to publish it, but everyone knew exactly what would happen. The authors were just too stubborn to listen. If only everyone would stop to listen...

Of course they knew something bad was going to happen...it's not like they were oblivious to it. The point is that they have the right to say whatever the fuck they want and they exercised it.

And then people use their right to free speech to limit that of others.

Free speech can't be used to limit free speech. Only physical force can.

It's important to distinguish between personal rights and property rights. If you set foot on my property, I am well within my rights to limit what you can do or express, lest I order you to leave my property altogether. If I'm renting my property to you, the same rule applies. In this case, the creators of a cartoon have engaged in a business contract with a television network. This network, being the proprietors of private property, have the right to say what can and cannot be aired through their network. They also have the right to censor this material. If the cartoon developers are unsatisfied with this, then they can try to break-off the contract and find a more co-operative network to air their cartoon. Technically, they shouldn't have entered into a contract to begin with, knowing the contract likely outlines the network's right to invoke censorship.

Free-speech is rescinded when you are putting yourself on another's property. This must be permissible, because the rights of an individual cannot take prerogative when it comes to private property. The nature of freedom has to exist in a set of tiers, where some freedoms have prerogative over others. This is a necessary compromise resulting from the mutually exclusive nature of how certain elements of a society function.

Consider this, for instance: A Neo-Nazi mob parades onto your property dressed like KKK members, and they're all shouting some racist / prejudice nonsense. Should you be obligated to tolerate this expression occurring on *your* property in consideration of free-speech? No. If you want to order them to leave, it should be your right to do so. They're disturbing you in a place that should otherwise be your sanctuary. If these same protesters were protesting on public property, then they should be protected under freedom of speech.

Another scenario: You own a radio network, and one of your guests begins to express hostile views that might alienate your listeners. Should you be forbidden to pull the plug on their act, because you would be limiting their freedom of expression? No. Let them go out in public and express these views. You aren't obligated to loan your property to them for this purpose.

Very well-said, Zera. For example, people often complain when I choose to curb or censor a discussion here. Because I pay for the hosting and domain for Cemetech, this virtual space is mine, and hence the rules of free speech do not apply. Any website owner has the right to curtail the content on their own website or forum, as that website ultimately represents them. I can't think of the public space equivalent in the virtual world, though.

Yeah, like the owners of the nick-jr site dont want you saying "Lol %#@% you all kiddies" or something like that...

I don't think anyone is arguing the the law of free speech does or should apply here, more that you should adopt the ideal yourself in the interest of giving all your users a voice, within reason...

And I think we do here, and I think to some extent all sites do, within reason as dictated by their content. For example, Engadget needs to tolerate anti-Apple sentiment, despite their strong pro-Apple bias.

Exactly. The only disagreement you'll ever have is on what "within reason" entails. Some users will inevitably want more freedom, while others will want more protection from what they see as vulgar or offensive.

Indeed, and I think that's where it falls to the administrator(s) or moderator(s) to come up with a good compromise that doesn't offend too many people nor make too many people cry censorship and stiflement. Unfortunately, I think the hardest part is coming up with a consistent set of rules so one or more users or groups of users don't feel they're being unfairly discriminated against for whatever reasn.