If it caused riots in Honalee that took the life of Americans who were being blamed for the work of an individual, it would be worthy of comment from the government disavowing that it represents the government or the people of America. Which is true. This is because you are narrow of vision, amigo. You see the world through philosophical blinders that rob you of perception, empathy, and pragmatism. This is your personal delusion. In the big picture , that you cannot see, there are many issues more important than free speech. That ain't what she said. Stop lying. She said their anger was misplaced, which is true and a message that needed to be said. You actually think that Obama should have announced that the film was approved by him and that Americans stands behind mocking and jeering Mohammed. Islam can just kiss our ass, kill our people, blame America, and start a few new wars. What a friggin' idiot. Only to you, you sad individual.
stop saying that! the free speech doesnt cause anything! being a lunatic causes violence. thats my whole point! nope. without freedom of expression you immediately fall into totalitarianism. healthy debate is the only thing that keeps societies frmo crumbling. that people like you and i can peacefull call eash other morons with zero fear, this is the whole foundation of any good system. i know it sounds dramatic. but free speech is everything. really, it is.
You are free to poke a lunatic with a sharp stick, but if he pulls out a grenade and kills 10 people, then you have freely done something stupid that has real, not philosophical, impact on others. It is altogether proper to characterize your action as inflammatory, stupid, irresponsible, and not an action of the nation. It's a vital thing, but it is far from everything. Why are you siding with this foreign rag head whose inflammatory propaganda incites other foreign rag heads in to hatred and violence against America? He comes here and takes advantage of our freedoms to do something that causes great pain and anguish to the nation. Not one person has suggested he has no right make the film. We suggest that he took advantage of this right to make a bad film, an inflammatory film, pure partisan propaganda that does not represent America. Free speech gives us that right. It gives the government that right as well. The government did not censor the film nor deny it right to be made, only to deny its stupidity, irresponsibility, and it's consequences. Again your obsession with pure philosophy precludes you from understanding that freedom of speech also includes the right to condemn specific speeches.
you dont understand cause and effect. i can say whatever i want and if you go off blowing up things, every single molecule of the damage was caused by you, and you bear all of the responsibility. how can you not see this. again, if tom cruise blows up the studio that makes south park (for mocking scientology), do you say south park was irresponsible? if a rogue physicist blows up the LHC because he hates the higgs boson, do we say it was disgusting that they searched for the god particle? why are we looking anywhere but at the person who is violent, ever, no matter what? every violent crime is caused by something. jews pissed off hitler. were they inflammatory and stupid for being jewish? what if they knew in advance that celebrating yom kippur would really piss off hitler? seriously, think about this. because we as a society have this wild idea that somehow faith based beliefs are above criticism, that you have to respect a man's faith? why? if a man's faith says he rapes little boys, do i respect that? obviously not. what if his faith says the earth is flat or 5000 years old? what if his faith says the world needs a global islamic rule? what if his faith calls for him to blow up times square? at some point we need to accept that faith, in concept, is not healthy. and when people are critical of faith, no matter who they are thats fine. its not like its so hard to deal with criticism. i have friends that are catholic. i light those fuckers up. and we continue to be friends. its fine. its just talk. but if my friends told me i wasnt allowed to discuss it with them, or they would punch me, i would hate them and walk away, never to speak to them again. and my friends in new york almost universally think i am the southern stupid conservative. and i encourage them to say so if thats what they think. i am not afraid to defend my positions. i dont think its reprehensible or wrong that they are critical of me. and if i beat them up, i would not expect anyone to blame anyone but me. every piece of art, no matter how terrible or poorly expressed, has a position. you label the ones you do not like to be propaganda. james joyce is propaganda if you think his existentialist stream of consciousness crap is sending nonsense messages. everything has a POV, everything intends to influence. thats what art is. the whole world is a marketplace of ideas, all of which can be labelled as propaganda for a cause. i say michael moore is reprehensible. but if a conservative shoots michael moore i dont want obama saying that moore was reprehensible, that is not appropriate. he has an opinion. for that he should always be defended from violence. this is why i hate 9/11 truthers so much. i do not like misplaced blame. always focus on the violence, always remember who is to blame.
More myopic philosophy and blind idealism. You didn't listen to a single word I said. You have no understanding of free speech at all if you imagine that free speech is somehow immune from freely spoken criticism.
i understand that. you and i can say everything is crap. we are free to debate what is tasteless. but the government isnt. the government does not declare huckleberry finn to be racist. the government does not declare the bible to be true, or false. especially not in the context of violent people that are trying to justifiy the violence by the truth or falsity of he bible. mohammad isnt sacred. we can make movies of him acting like whatever we want and its just an opinion about religion. the government has no opinions about religion.
red, if we can demonstrate that the aurora kid killed because he thinks he is the joker, can we call the batman movie reprehensible and irresponsible?
Who says? The government can take any position it needs to. How in the world can individual have free speech but a government Of, By, and For the People does not? Show me where the Constitution prohibits the government from exercising free speech? Good luck with that. Yes, we know you hate religion. But in the real world governments have to deal with religions, religious sensitivity, and religious intolerance. The government wasn't making an opinion about religion. It was making it clear that the film was created by an individual, not the government and that the government protects free speech even if it is reprehensible, inflammatory and causes a great deal of trouble. To deny that this film was the catalyst of much trouble is simply stupid and blind. The government has never denied thr right to make such films, but it does not have to endorse their content. Why do you, raghead lover? You can call the Batman movie anything you wish. So can I. So can Secretary Clinton. The government can make whatever statement it wishes about the movie, except to order it to be censored or pulled.
Meanwhile, Bill Mahrer and his cronies can go on HBO and similarly trash Christianity, and no one says anything about it. Why? Because, Christians won't respond by flying airplanes into buildings. The reactions from BHO, Hillary, etc, are all about fear and capitulation, nothing more.
