Palestianian atheist arrested

[dust1n]

1001st post! opcorn:

 

[.lava]

1001st post! opcorn:

good point

.

 

[Sahar]

From the beginning, we all agreed that a line is drawn on free speech somewhere when you start talking about violence. Yet at first you said "justify the Hamas or Hezbollah position". You didn't say "justify suicide bombing attacks on civilians". What changed was I read what Yusuf actually said, instead of your sugar-coated version of it.

Sugar coated?!! Is this some sort of amnesia, really?!!

But for example, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is banned from entering the US and the UK for justifying Hamas actions which are recognized as terrorist acts there. And based on this, I don't think you can do it safely there without being sued.

But you can't get sued for saying things like you believe suicide bombingsagainst Israelis are Islamically justified, etc. in the U.S.

You get it from my first talk and now you accuse me of sugar-coating? From the beginning I have told you that they are recognized as terrorist acts there!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sugar coated?!! Is this some sort of amnesia, really?!!

You get it from my first talk and now you accuse me of sugar-coating? From the beginning I have told you that they are recognized as terrorist acts there!!

By gosh, you're right! I must have had some sort of amnesia. (Where am I, by the way?)

You didn't sugar-coat. I take it back!

Aside from the accusation against you that you were sugar-coating, I think everything else I said in the last two posts is accurate.

 

[Sahar]

Indeed it does. That's a great point and I don't have a good answer for it. I do believe that legally, U.S. citizens can praise and celebrate the violence of the Iraqi or Afghan insurgents against U.S. soldiers, even civilians, and the violence of Hezbollah against Israel. I believe this because I've seen people doing it and I've never heard of anyone being arrested for this, and there's just no legal basis I am aware of in the U.S. that would allow a judge to convict a person for this speech. These people have even been invited on TV talk shows and there was never any mention that they were doing anything illegal.

So there's no legal double-standard there, you can support the fight against the Taliban and you can support the fight against NATO (in speech, I mean; you can't materially support it).

So you are basically saying you are allowed to advocate violence in the US, you can support the fight against Taliban and you can support the Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians and its children and btw including Hamas members and their families but when it comes to Hamas operations somehow you will be jailed?

Unless you're a foreigner trying to enter the country. It seems the real double-standard here is not about freedom of speech per se, but that the U.S. allows its citizens more freedom of speech than it allows foreigners who wish to enter the country. If you're a foreigner you won't be allowed to enter the U.S. if you're buddies with enemies of the U.S. government and U.S. allies.

Really?! So when you are a foreigner, you're banned because of certain things you said in other places but if you are a citizen it's okay to advocate these things inside your country?!! And you can be an enemy of the US government inside the US itself, right?

This doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, but maybe it is if I think carefully about it....

 

[Sahar]

By gosh, you're right! I must have had some sort of amnesia. (Where am I, by the way?)

I've noticed that there is something wrong from my conversation with you in other recent threads. Take care of yourself.

You didn't sugar-coat. I take it back!

No problem.

I think everything else I said in the last two posts is accurate.

I wouldn't say they are accurate. What I see is that there is confusion on your part.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So you are basically saying you are allowed to advocate violence in the US, you can support the fight against Taliban and you can support the Israeli attacks against Palestinian civilians and its children and btw including Hamas members and their families but when it comes to Hamas operations somehow you will be jailed?

No I never said anyone would be jailed for stating they support "Hamas operations". Give me an example of someone in the U.S. being jailed for this.

Really?! So when you are a foreigner, you're banned because of certain things you said in other places but if you are a citizen it's okay to advocate these things inside your country?!! And you can be an enemy of the US government inside the US itself, right?

First: I don't know why Yusuf was banned in the U.S. The article from the BBC didn't talk about the reasons he was barred from entering the U.S., only the UK which has different laws.

Second: Even though I don't know the policy concerning foreigners, I do know that citizens in the U.S. can absolutely be an enemy of the US government. I gave you a bunch of examples, Alaskan separatists, Texan separatists, the Westboro Baptist Church ("God loves dead American soldiers"), and some pro-Palestinian demonstrators ("Nuke Israel", "go back to the ovens", etc.) If I recall correctly, one RF poster and American citizen, mball, was very supportive of the "Afghan resistance" against NATO.

 

[Sahar]

The law in question is penal code § 135a. Link here if you can find someone who reads Norwegian. I was unable to find an English version of it so I'll translate it as best I can:

'§ 135a. Any person who willfully or through gross negligence publicly put forward a discriminatory or hateful speech may be punished by fines or imprisonment for up to 3 years. A public utterance made, see § 7, paragraph 2, is considered an utterance when it is set up so that it is likely to reach a larger number of people. Also included is the use of symbols. Conspiracy is punished in the same way.

With discriminatory or hateful expression one considers expression that is meant to threaten or insulting anyone, or promote hatred, persecution or contempt against anyone because of their:

a) skin color, or national or ethnic origin,
b) religion or belief, or
c) homosexual orientation or lifestyle.'

The law has rarely been used, but in those cases where it has been used it has been in those cases where threats have been put forth, or where the statements made were likely to result in violent or threatening behaviour towards people of these groups.

OK but the law didn't state when the speech is likely to result in violence or if it's threatening only. This was only one of the articles.
"that is meant to threaten or insulting anyone, or promote hatred, persecution or contempt against anyone because of their".
"Or" is important here.

Listen, the ideas or the teachings of any religion don't feel hatred or contempt but the followers are. Secondly, I have posted stuff from Wikipedia where people are actually prosecuted and convicted of hate speech for writing the Qur'an on a toilet paper, for saying homosexuality is a sin or for depicting Jesus as marijuana smoker. Not necessary in your country but in other countries that have similar laws.

We protect people but not ideas.

I don't disagree. We protect people. BTW, you can justify a lot of things by the excuse of "protecting the people".

I'm not so sure that Palestinian blogger feels very protected...

However, we can say very well it could be that they are protecting the people there.

Terribly sorry. I got my replies mixed up.
The question wasn't intended for you.
I have edited the post you answered to so it doesn't look as if you were avoiding anything... :foot:

Oh, this is so sweet. Thanks a lot for your nice gesture. It wasn't a big deal anyway.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I've noticed that there is something wrong from my conversation with you in other recent threads. Take care of yourself.

I think I remember which thread you are referring to. I'm sorry for not replying but some time went by, there were a lot of lengthy posts, and I eventually excused myself from the thread without saying anything.

I wouldn't say they are accurate. What I see is that there is confusion on your part.

Well, it's certainly confusing when people say you can go to jail or get sued in the U.S. for expressing opinions supportive of Hamas or Hezbollah, or you can go to jail simply for writing a Muslim blog (as Starsoul says), when I live here and these accusations go directly against my first-hand experience. I gave many examples. If the criticisms of U.S. free speech from you and Starsoul are true, I would like to know about them, but OTOH I haven't seen any hard evidence. You said at first people could go to jail for justifying Hezbollah operations, clearly that's false, then you said you could get sued for supporting Hamas, that's also not true. So perhaps I am not the only one who is confused here?

By the way, I have to ask again, why does it matter that Finkelstein is a Jew?

 

[Sahar]

First:

But you can't get sued for saying things like you believe suicide bombings against Israelis are Islamically justified, etc. in the U.S.

After that:

Hmmm well the Wiki page says Yusuf publicly supports suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. This is outside the bounds of free speech since he is calling for violence....
?

Then:

I do believe that legally, U.S. citizens can praise and celebrate the violence of the Iraqi or Afghan insurgents against U.S. soldiers, even civilians, and the violence of Hezbollah against Israel.

Not to mention the part where being a foreigner enemy is problematic but an American enemy is perfectly fine.

 

[Sahar]

I think I remember which thread you are referring to. I'm sorry for not replying but some time went by, there were a lot of lengthy posts, and I eventually excused myself from the thread without saying anything.

I actually don't know which thread this is but hey never mind!

Well, it's certainly confusing when people say you can go to jail or get sued in the U.S. for expressing opinions supportive of Hamas or Hezbollah, or you can go to jail simply for writing a Muslim blog (as Starsoul says), when I live here and these accusations go directly against my first-hand experience. I gave many examples. If the criticisms of U.S. free speech from you and Starsoul are true, I would like to know about them, but OTOH I haven't seen any hard evidence. You said at first people could go to jail for justifying Hezbollah operations, clearly that's false, then you said you could get sued for supporting Hamas, that's also not true. So perhaps I am not the only one who is confused here?

Please, I don't want to go into the meaningless discussion of you said and I said, more. You can return to my previous posts to know what I actually said.

By the way, I have to ask again, why does it matter that Finkelstein is a Jew?

Just like it matters if you are a foreigner or a citizen. Citizens enjoy more freedom and protection. Can it differ if you were a Jew or a Muslim? Why not?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Sahar,

Like I said, I'm not trying to defend the U.S. I'm only trying to respect the facts. You implied I made contradictory statements, so let's take it one at a time:

But you can't get sued for saying things like you believe suicide bombings against Israelis are Islamically justified, etc. in the U.S.

[emphasis added by Sahar] You claimed a person could get sued for this in the U.S. I say they can't. I can't find any examples of someone getting sued for this. Please provide an example, if you believe my statement is incorrect.

Hmmm well the Wiki page says Yusuf publicly supports suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. This is outside the bounds of free speech since he is calling for violence....
?

We all agreed free speech ends somewhere once you start calling for violence, although we may not agree on the details. Correct? This opinion which we all share does not contradict the *fact* that the U.S. legal system allows certain forms of calling for violence ("Nuke Israel", "God loves dead soldiers", "Victory to Hezbollah", etc.) but not more direct threats ("I am going to kill YOU", "Let's blow up an airport," etc.) So I don't see why you have a problem with this statement...

Not to mention the part where being a foreigner enemy is problematic but an American enemy is perfectly fine.

I did not say it is perfectly fine. I said it might not be totally unreasonable but I'm not sure (I am thinking about allowing anyone to enter the country who calls for terrorist attacks... that sounds like a security risk). But it's a moot point because we have not even established why Yusef was barred from entering. You never answered my question if Yusuf donated money to Hamas. That's illegal for anyone to do and it's not a free speech issue.

Another Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, was barred from entering the U.S. because he donated money to organizations which gave money to Hamas. A U.S. judge recently ruled he would be allowed to enter the U.S. since it only became illegal to donate money to those organizations *after* he donated. Read more about this case at the American Civil Liberties Union website: Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » A Victory for Free Speech

 

[jarofthoughts]

OK but the law didn't state when the speech is likely to result in violence or if it's threatening only. This was only one of the articles.

The other articles of the law does not deal with freedom of speech even remotely, which is why I only posted this one. The law concerns itself with disturbances of peace and order and the other articles deal with violent behaviour, destruction of property and similar.

Listen, the ideas or the teachings of any religion don't feel hatred or contempt but the followers are.

True, but one cannot go around feeling PERSONALLY insulted when someone attacks an idea. For instance I am a strong supporter of science and while not a scientist one might call me a science enthusiast. The scientific method is, in my opinion, the best most efficient idea we humans have come up with and we owe all of modern society to it.
And science is under attack all the time from Creationists, Vaccine opponents and others who bring both insulting and baseless claims to the table. But that doesn't mean that I have any reason or right to feel personally insulted. As long as they are attacking an idea and not me personally, why should I.
I will of course argue, discuss and refute their claims, but at no point have I thought that these people should be jailed for voicing their opinion.

Secondly, I have posted stuff from Wikipedia where people are actually prosecuted and convicted of hate speech for writing the Qur'an on a toilet paper, for saying homosexuality is a sin or for depicting Jesus as marijuana smoker. Not necessary in your country but in other countries that have similar laws.

I don't hold that books are holy, in fact I don't hold that anything is holy, but that is irrelevant for this discussion. I cannot, obviously speak for all Western countries (I would be hard pressed to say that I speak for Norway even), and there are of course examples of people having been treated unjustly. And when this is the case I have no problem stating that this is wrong and should not happen. These things shouldn't happen but alas, sometimes they do, and when they do we should speak up and demand that the error is corrected.

I don't disagree. We protect people. BTW, you can justify a lot of things by the excuse of "protecting the people".

That is true, but I think you get where I am going with this. People should be protected from abuse and violence, but I see no reason why they should be protected from other people's opinions, nor should they be protected from actual information about how the world really works.

However, we can say very well it could be that they are protecting the people there.

I don't think that the people needed protection in this case. Protection against what exactly? From hearing a point of view that was different than theirs?

Oh, this is so sweet. Thanks a lot for your nice gesture. It wasn't a big deal anyway.

Fair is fair. I made a mistake so it's on me to correct it.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Just like it matters if you are a foreigner or a citizen. Citizens enjoy more freedom and protection. Can it differ if you were a Jew or a Muslim? Why not?

There are differences between citizens and foreigners in the U.S. Constitution (although conservatives will try to argue there are more differences, liberals will argue there are fewer). There are explicitly no differences between religious groups in the U.S. Constitution. Hypothetically, there could be Muslim citizens saying what Finkelstein says who are imprisoned. I am extremely, extremely doubtful and I cannot find any cases of this happening. If you persist in your claim that Muslim U.S. citizens can be arrested for saying what Finkelstein says, and he is only protected because he is Jewish, please provide evidence. Otherwise it's just a baseless claim. And it's the worst kind of baseless claim because it's the kind of falsehood that has fueled racism and hatred against Jews, even in the U.S., in the past.

 

[Sahar]

Sahar,

Like I said, I'm not trying to defend the U.S. I'm only trying to respect the facts. You implied I made contradictory statements, so let's take it one at a time:

[emphasis added by Sahar] You claimed a person could get sued for this in the U.S. I say they can't. I can't find any examples of someone getting sued for this. Please provide an example, if you believe my statement is incorrect.
We all agreed free speech ends somewhere once you start calling for violence, although we may not agree on the details. Correct? This opinion which we all share does not contradict the *fact* that the U.S. legal system allows certain forms of calling for violence ("Nuke Israel", "God loves dead soldiers", "Victory to Hezbollah", etc.) but not more direct threats ("I am going to kill YOU", "Let's blow up an airport," etc.) So I don't see why you have a problem with this statement...
I did not say it is perfectly fine. I said it might not be totally unreasonable but I'm not sure (I am thinking about allowing anyone to enter the country who calls for terrorist attacks... that sounds like a security risk). But it's a moot point because we have not even established why Yusef was barred from entering. You never answered my question if Yusuf donated money to Hamas. That's illegal for anyone to do and it's not a free speech issue.

Another Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, was barred from entering the U.S. because he donated money to organizations which gave money to Hamas. A U.S. judge recently ruled he would be allowed to enter the U.S. since it only became illegal to donate money to those organizations *after* he donated. Read more about this case at the American Civil Liberties Union website: Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » A Victory for Free Speech

I am going to forget anything you said before and I am starting from this post of yours.

We all agreed free speech ends somewhere once you start calling for violence

Who is we?
I understand from what you said that people are free to support violence is some cases and they can't in others.
I am asking you now; Is supporting hamas operations against Israelis outside the bound of freedom of speech or not? Can any person express this freely in public without any legal problems?
Is supporting the Israeli operations against Palestinians outside the bound of freedom of speech or not? Can any person express this freely in public without any legal problems?

(I am thinking about allowing anyone to enter the country who calls for terrorist attacks... that sounds like a security risk)

But calling for terrorist attacks while being an American citizen isn't a security risk?

But it's a moot point because we have not even established why Yusef was barred from entering.

I told you why. The US wanted to enlist Yusuf Al-Qaradawi among terrorists but thanks to the effort of Emir Qatar that intervened with this. His views on Hamas and its operations were also the reason for banning him from entering UK.

You never answered my question if Yusuf donated money to Hamas.

Maybe because you never asked before?
Not according to my knowledge. I never heard that he has been accused of this but his views and fataws are the issue.

Another Islamic scholar, Tariq Ramadan, was barred from entering the U.S. because he donated money to organizations which gave money to Hamas. A U.S. judge recently ruled he would be allowed to enter the U.S. since it only became illegal to donate money to those organizations *after* he donated. Read more about this case at the American Civil Liberties Union website: Blog of Rights: Official Blog of the American Civil Liberties Union » A Victory for Free Speech

Ok, isA I will read more about his case.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm not surprised, seems to me that its you who really doesn't know what he's are talking about. Yes it happened in US, looks like you never came across the news, but oops it was never publicized, I know because i know those people, do you really find that hard to digest? I thought so. This is not changing the subject, blogs and forums are a tool of delivering one's opinion whether its audio or written.

Without any evidence or even a good explanation, you're just some random person making claims on the internet. Again, I ask: why were your American Muslim blogger friends arrested, while so many other American Muslim bloggers are not arrested? Here is one such blog: The American Muslim

How about the British Man who just got arrested for his emotional tweet and is serving a life BAN from that airport?

How about it? What's your point? The punishment may be excessive but it's not a free speech issue, he talked about blowing up an airport.

And the other British man , Jeff Savage, 48, said he was "wound up in hospital after being under sniper fire" during anti-government protests and his comments were meant to be 'old british' sarcastic, got him arrested. Now this and the above is a fine example that some kinds of speech can really get you in trouble, i don't think the freedom of speech thing is applicable at all the places all the times, you will get into trouble somehow, whether or not its just sattire or the truth, thats another debate.

Yes, but that happened in Thailand he wasn't arrested by the UK government ... you're changing the subject again.

Though I'm totally against all kinds of terrorism,and understand the concern of Us authorites, there should be some limits on infringing the rights of citizens on just suspicion.I cannot give you names of people who have not gotten reported in the media, but they are all university students, some most have been held for months for investigation by fbi for no good reason, it has wasted their precious study time in the universities. Here is one related item that made it to the public, you probably would know, on Suspicion that the FRIEND of a half Egyptian Half American Boy, Used the word bomb in one of his blog posts. This is just Brilliant.

The link doesn't work, please repost.

 

[Father Heathen]

Just a question for you, ( don't mean to offend) If your mother is caught in pictures in a highly objectionable way, with a highly controversial figure, would you like her pics to circulate the entire world, along with her family memebrs' and their dogs pics and all, or would you ,like any common decent man, want the matter to be settled in court/law authorities with the least noise made over it to protect your residual sense of dignity?

Well, it's different when it comes to an individual's rights being violated, obviously. But irreverence towards historical figures or historical events does not fall under that.

if yes to the later, do you still feel censorship is for the cowards and blatant boldness is a sign of strong poise? or your statement only relates to non-censorship of hate speech, which in so many ways has become a projection of inflammatory speech and a huge waste of time and energy? Incase yes to the former, do you think people would like adapt to that kind of numbness when their honor is in question?

The best way to deal with harsh criticism is to retort with a rebuttal and counter-criticism. If someone says something false, you disprove it, not silence it (nor react with childish violence).

Critique is good enough but instigative, destructive, foul literature is a waste of one's own abilities, and other's sensibilities. I'm sure many people are cool when subjects close to their hearts get a fervent response, but most are not.

There is always the option to ignore them rather than strip away people's rights and liberty out of petty revenge.

The retort from the victim side attempts to get atleast equal if not exaggerated in such instances and then we have a vicious circle going on a never ending whirl. This almost always happens, so why indulge in it?is it productive, indicative of superior intelligence or what?

Beliefs and ideas that are worth holding should be able to weather, withstand and endure through such things. I would question the integrity of something that needs to be protected through forced silence.

 

[kai]

I dont know about anyone else but i have lost the plot with this one!

 

[beenie]

I dont know about anyone else but i have lost the plot with this one!

i'll join you in lostville. i get that we're still talking about freedom of expression/speech, but boy has this thread taken off.

 

[kai]

I think what non western people need to understand a few things

no one claims their society is perfect ,far from it in the west we are extremely critical of our own governments and indeed change them often through our electoral systems.

western countries are all different and have different laws we are not all one country.

you know i think this is really boiling down to opposing views on blasphemy ? whether it is a crime or not ? of course it starts getting complicated if it incites violence,but who exactly is inciting that violence? what about if a certain religions followers react to it in a violent way.

we have seen over the past few years that many Muslims react violently to perceived insults to Islam and its prophet,( cartoons , books , plays etc) should Islam then get special treatment if the followers are "expected to react violently"



i mean yes you could be insulted by something that is written or said but should the right of someone to say what he thinks be curtailed because it will cause violence , not because he has called for it or promoted it but because violence rather than dialogue and debate may have become the reaction to insults at this time by certain followers of religion.

"free" speech is curtailed if the speaker promotes or endorses violence,I am OK with that, but what if its a section of the public that endorses and perpetrates a violent response to certain speech, should that be taken into account when formulating laws?