Yes, it is a law, at least where I live. And the right to ridicule is a protected part of it. Your imposing your moral sense does nothing to clarify the law.
Really ? Can you show me that part of the First Amendment which,
unequivocally, gives the right to mock or ridicule ?? Or are you trying to impose your immoral understanding of the Law on others ??
If you see that as a distinction which would matter then there is no common understanding that we share in order to have a discussion. Chaucer was basing his writing on real events and people. Claiming that, because he doesn’t name a biblical character, that makes a difference, means that you and I are talking about very different ideas.
Right, if you cannot see the difference between using real Biblical characters and using fictional characters in a satirical humor and its effect on the sentiment of the followers of that particular Faith, then, you and I are talking about very different ideas.
If that’s the limited way in which you choose to understand Chaucer, then that’s fine. I disagree, but it shouldn’t make a difference. He is mocking sensitivities. Are you only defending Christianity and not the feeling of Catholics now?
I disagree, Chaucer is not mocking sensitivities, he’s mocking the church for not practicing what it preached. He was not trying to change Christianity or the Christians, he was only trying to highlight the failures of the church. So, your question “
Are you only defending Christianity and not the feeling of Catholics now?” was really irrelevant.
Actually, Chaucer was ridiculing much that Christians were and believed. The picture of Muhammed was aimed at a particular belief in Islam. Christians don’t have the right to feel offended by Muslims do? Chaucer issued a retraction and apologized. I guess you feel he had nothing to apologize for if he didn’t offend anyone.
What exactly was “
Chaucer ridiculing much that Christians were and believed” about ?
BTW, Chaucer’s ‘retraction’ was included at the end of his book. The fact that this was included in his book tells us ‘the retraction’ is more of a safe clause rather than a retraction. If he believed he had offended the Christians and truly regretted it, he could and would have retracted the book rather than to include ‘the retraction’ in the book and proceed with the release of the book – that would be like you knowing your speech is going to insult the audience but decided ‘hey, let’s insult them and at the end of the speech, I will issue an apology and all my insults will be forgotten” !
The point which you seem to ignore is that Christians all around the world wouldn’t use this as an excuse to behead anyone because the criticism is protected under the law. Maplethorpe died with his head attached.
Why are you so obsessed with beheading ?? I am beginning to believe you may be liking it !!
Because every group’s sensitivity would drive how you speak and act. One group says it is offended by the use of nouns, and you have to stop using nouns. Another group is hurt by verbs, so no verbs for you. Should my being offended by someone’s wearing a cross mean that no one should be allowed to wear a cross?
Is that your understanding of what it means to be respectful to the sensitivity of others ?? You DO need psychiatric help, buddy !
And if you can show how this defines me as a voting member of a particular political party then you might be on solid ground, but you can’t. Go ask the cast of SNL for whom they voted and tell them that if they believe in mockery, they must have voted for the person you connect this to.
What has this got to do with any political party or the SNL satires ?? SNL satires have always been about poking fun at the folly of an individual, groups or establishments – it was never directed to a Belief or Faith with the intention to upset the sentiments of the followers of any Faith. Try to keep up and stay focus although it might be very hard for you !
You can dance all you want to justify how you misrepresented my words, but the fact is, you made the immoral move to delete “often” and change what I said. You have offended my sensitivity. Off with your head.
How can anyone misrepresented a statement like “
provoking and mocking the beliefs of others is a much more effective way to make the world a safer place” ?? You can salsa all night but it is what it is and anyone who said something like that should have his head examined. Period.
No. You won’t excuse a civics lesson when it offends. Why should I excuse grammar if it offends?
If grammars easily offend you and civic lessons must include materials which upsett the sentiments of others, then, without a shadow of doubt, you DO need psychiatric help… FAST !!
Wait, I have to defend WHY I am so sensitive about something? And you now don’t want to change and allow for my being sensitive and instead question it? This flip-flopping of your position seems hypocritical.
Well, you cannot defend sensitivity - you can only defend your actions or your words.
Your inability to follow the logic of the argument, and your need to change positions and be inconsistent is a sure sign of a troubled childhood, and tells me your political leanings, also.
It sounds more like your inability to follow the moral logic of the argument that you keep shifting the goalposts.
Swing and a miss there, buddy. I was pointing out that being offended allows, by your logic, extra legal means to respond to even protected behavior. You are aghast that I, being offended, would hack an account, but beheading someone sits well with you. Interesting.
Ahh.. there’s that word again – ‘beheading’ – I think you really like the idea of beheading more than you want to admit it !! Interesting.
BTW, I am not aghast, no reason to be especially for such a stupid and silly threat - I am just pointing out to you that hacking is not only immoral, its also a crime.
Really? You should study the first amendment, then. Speaking from ignorance just embarrasses you.
Yes, really. Which part of the First Amendment you believe states,
unequivocally, mockery, to insult and to ridicule are protected rights ?? Show it. Don’t embarrass yourself by making statements based on assumptions.
But other laws DO mention rape. No other laws mention mockery. Try to stay focused here, and if you don’t know something, you can ask instead of saying something ridiculous.
Of course, other laws would mention rape, but then, we are talking about the First Amendment here, not about other laws. Try to stay focused here, and if you don’t know something, you can ask instead of saying something ridiculous.
You really think this? That the ability to ridicule means that revealing troop locations is protected? You really need to study First Amendment law before you make claims like this.
What nonsense are you babbling about here ?? Let me say it again - if you truly believe mockery, to insult and to ridicule are,
unequivocally, part of the First Amendment, show it. That should not be difficult if you have study it as you claimed.
No. You are having a hard enough time following what I said. Don’t try to add more to it. To BE offended isn’t a “right” but if people have a protected right to offend, then those who take offense will take offense. You would rather no one has the right to offend, and that isn’t the way of the world. Try to keep up.
This is what you said - “
You believe in the right not to be offended. That is not what I believe in.”. If you don’t believe in the right NOT to be offended, it means you believe in the right to BE offended – you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that. And now you are changing your position by saying “
To BE offended isn’t a “right” ?? So, it’s rather comical of you to say I have a hard enough time following what you said WHEN you yourself are having a hard enough time following what you said !! What a joke !!
Great. And yet here you are defending that behavior and blaming the victim. Did you see the statement by Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed? You should read it.
Who’s defending that behavior and blaming the victim ?? How did you come to that conclusion ? Stating the fact “
that almost all major Muslim leaders and organizations in France also condemned the beheading. So did many Muslims around the world” is NOT defending that behavior or blaming the victim, it means we condemn that behavior !!
Yes. The world wants to say “hey, like the rest of us, feel offended but don’t behead anyone, shoot anyone, or blow anyone up.” And you want Muslims to say “Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes.” Because those are even remotely equivalent. Well done.
Ahh, there’s that word again – ‘beheading’ – you ARE really obsessed with beheading, aren’t you ?
And stop putting words in my mouth – where and when did I ever say I want Muslims to say “
Well, only if you change how you teach your civics classes.” ?? Your responses lack credibility, buddy !!
You have a whole lot of “French should…” statements. If you, or Muslims think that the French should change, then you and the Muslims should get into politics and change the laws. That’s how change happens in a governed society.
Of course, I have a lot of “French should…” statements because I am talking in the context of the incident that happened in France… It would be silly of me to have a lot of “the Chinese should…” statements when the incident happened in France !! Try to focus and keep up !! If you are unable to keep up, let me know, I can always slow it down for you… no problem.
Oh look – examples of people making statements that the LEGAL SYSTEM decided weren;t protected, not some guy with a knife! Amazing – the law works.
Seems to me you are incapable of doing anything unless there’s a LEGAL SYSTEM which tells you what you can do and what you cannot do.
To answer that, you would have to study LAW, not murder. No Jew picked up a knife or a gun and killed anyone. You have a problem with the entire governmental/legal system and want to use your discomfort to justify murder as a reasonable and expected outcome. That’s sad.
Well that confirmed what I just said – you are incapable of doing anything unless there’s a LEGAL SYSTEM or the LAW to tell you what you can do and what you cannot do – you probably have a very deprived and controlled childhood which erodes your capability to think and act on your own. That’s sad. I feel for you, buddy.
