Egyptian Prime Minister demands US citizens stop insulting Islam!

[anveena]

Well I see why he's asking for this, but what he's asking for is impossible to do, since the United States values free speech. It's something they're just going to have to deal with. Just like we're going to have to deal with the extremist rioting over the film.

Regardless, a country that can't keep its own citizens from murdering ambassadors from another country is hardly in the position to demand that other country control its citizens.

Egypt isn't Libya.

[Activi-T]

There's no need to protect speech that everyone is OK with. It renders the concept of "free speech" meaningless if it's actually "free speech unless the government deems it too mean".

If you are fine with putting your countrymen that live elsewhere in danger because you want to be able to say "mean things" about a group of people, who am I to judge I guess. Free speech is paid for by the blood of patriots to paraphrase an over used quote.

[Donald Hellscream]

the way i see it they should only be able to make such a demand if they could get their own people to stop insulting christianity and all other religions because while it may be a bit much to insult their holy prophet they sure aren't the least bit tolerant then it comes to other religions.

I am aware that not all muslims are a bunch of fanatical(is that even a word) zealots who just wishes to purge the world of all who doesn't agree with their religion, the ones in question are the ones i despise. Just to be clear and avoid misunderstandings.

[araine]

That is the attitude they need to be using when people do anything that "mocks" their religion.

Wish we had that attitude from the ultra right wing so called christians in this country that look to force there agenda upon the rest of us with any means necessary.

[Socialhealer]

buy flag burn it.....you're not burning my flag you bought it you're burning your own flag!

[Vanamman]

Relevant

[Spectral]

Hate speech is not free speech.

Actually, short of inciting violence or inciting a riot, it generally is considered free speech in the United States.

Actions have consequences and it is really easy for the far right wing nutcase to make more problems than his 15 seconds of lifelong fame is worth.. It is easy to be acting like an idiot when you are 7000 miles away and dont have to answer for your stupidity. Just because it is free speech.

The notion that someone should "answer" for their speech by being murdered is insane. The correct response to speech is speech.

you cant go around yellling kill the niggers and expect it to be covered by free speech. You cant go around claiming kill Obama and calling it free speech, doesnt works Secret service will knock on your door in no time.

These are both examples of inciting violence. They're in the narrow area that's not covered by the American 1st Amendment.

[zorkuus]

Hate speech is not free speech. Actions have consequences and it is really easy for the far right wing nutcase to make more problems than his 15 seconds of lifelong fame is worth.. It is easy to be acting like an idiot when you are 7000 miles away and dont have to answer for your stupidity. Just because it is free speech. Free speech rights are not meant to cover hate speech you cant go around yellling kill the niggers and expect it to be covered by free speech. You cant go around claiming kill Obama and calling it free speech, doesnt works Secret service will knock on your door in no time.

Now you're talking about someone openly inciting people to violence. But the issue here is different, the movie hasn't called for the deaths of anyone as far as I'm aware.

[Dazzy]

Please, please, please, do not make this thread turn into a religious debate.

On topic: The reaction is a bit too much, into the wrong direction.
I think it would have been properly handled if the Arab nation charged this anger into the person in charge of production of the movie rather than a whole country.

It can't be made into a religious debate, because it started as one. A religion tells it's followers to slaughter people who bash it. Maybe this tool should try and get control over the people in his own country before he tries to branch out and dictate what other countries do.

[Spectral]

If you are fine with putting your countrymen that live elsewhere in danger because you want to be able to say "mean things" about a group of people, who am I to judge I guess. Free speech is paid for by the blood of patriots to paraphrase an over used quote.

That you fault the individual making a movie rather than the individuals murdering is a problem on your end.

[Spirion]

LOL Islam. Religion is bad mmmkay.

<Infracted>

[lokithor]

Does this guy realize that an Egyptian (although he is Christian) made the film?

[Orodoth]

seriously? The friggin PM of a country is saying "don't offend us, or we'll go on wonton killing sprees and demand your president say he's sorry!".....

RUFCKNSRS?!?

Sorry, but a modernized civilization simply can't conduct proper business with another culture who refuses to budge from the 9th century... Its like they found what they thought was a happy medium back then, and just stuck with it.
They want the rest of the world to treat them as civilized equals, but if anyone puts a toe out of line, they flip sh!t and turn into a barbarian horde? Sorry folks, I think its time you were sat in the corner to think about your actions, i.e. being completely cut off from the western world. Honestly, they are lucky our current capitol hill staff aren't more conservative. Had this happened 4 or 5 years ago, there would be drones over Egypt 24/7. (not to say I condone the use of such tactics, but at least when people fear retaliation, they keep a bit more of a level head)

[Activi-T]

That you fault the individual making a movie rather than the individuals murdering is a problem on your end.

And the fact you can't see that fault lies with both is a problem at yours.

[Deleted]

Felt like leaving this here.

[Vanamman]

And the fact you can't see that fault lies with both is a problem at yours.

Please... Without these riots no more than 10,000 people would have even heard of this movie. Now that this happened millions more will watch it just to see what this BS is all about.

[Deleted]

People are so so stupid. I can not belive that some1 hurts innocent people coz some1 made a movie about their propeth. I am starting to feel that the image below really is not that bad idea. Every international conflict in the past years comes from there and it seem to get worse and worse. How can one be so blinded by a religion? I am sorry, religion has nothing to do with people being horrible. How can one be so stupid to even acknowledge the fact that his friends hurt the others.



@ i do not wish any1 to die or suffer, this photo does not represent my beliefs but yet for the modern society, modern world (USA and Europe mostly) that wants to change something (now or even in 1000 years) this place seems to be the wall that can not be crossed or crushed.

[Spectral]

And the fact you can't see that fault lies with both is a problem at yours.

Not at all; disproportionate and excessive retaliation always leaves moral culpability on the individual committing the murder.

[darkwarrior42]

And the fact you can't see that fault lies with both is a problem at yours.

Freedom of speech is mandatory, and grows from the idea that freedom of thought is essential to a democratic republic, the idea that every citizen must have the ability to think and decide for themselves.

Freedom of thought means that people are free to think things that are hateful. That doesn't make such thoughts good, but it does mean that the government has no right to tell people they cannot think such things.

We can and should do what we can to encourage tolerance, so that such thoughts do not arise... but stamping them out by force (physical or otherwise) isn't the answer, and if you truly think that giving the government the authority to tell people what they are and are not allowed to think is a good idea, we have fundamentally different ideas on government (and yours is fundamentally incompatible with the US constitution).

[Spectral]

Freedom of speech is mandatory, and grows from the idea that freedom of thought is essential to a democratic republic, the idea that every citizen must have the ability to think and decide for themselves.

Freedom of thought means that people are free to think things that are hateful. That doesn't make such thoughts good, but it does mean that the government has no right to tell people they cannot think such things.

We can and should do what we can to encourage tolerance, so that such thoughts do not arise... but stamping them out by force (physical or otherwise) isn't the answer, and if you truly think that giving the government the authority to tell people what they are and are not allowed to think is a good idea, we have fundamentally different ideas on government (and yours is fundamentally incompatible with the US constitution).

This is very well put, thanks for communicating it better than I have in this thread.