Strictly as the poll question was written, I voted no, as a matter of Free Speech that is.
However, Jason was absolutely correct as well, the man violated his probation which precluded his use of the Internet. From that perspective he should be prosecuted.
I think the poll should have indicated an option 'For his probation violation only'
Jason,
I agree with you, I voted "NO" in that he should not be punished for making the video, but probably should and will be punshied for violating his parole. (allegedly!)
I voted "no" assuming your question was related to the Freedom of Speech issue. He certainly should be prosecuted for his parole violations. Perhaps a better wording of your question is needed.
Indeed the film's producers should not be punished for the content of the film as the film remains protected speech. However, (as pointed out in earlier posts) there are charges reflecting violations of probation terms that may be pursued. There is also a question pending as to whether some of the actors and other personnel associated with the production may have been mislead to secure their participation in the film. In any event, these other charges should not be construed as punishment for perceived objectionable nature of the film's content.
I would suggest to the producers of the film, they might want to present the film within the milieu of their intended audience- perhaps screen it at the next Tehran, Kabul or Islamabad film festival. It's unfortunate that the rave responses to their production have been only indirectly visited upon them. Certainly they deserve to bask, first-hand, in the fruits of their labor. There is nothing more rewarding than experiencing -in person- public emotions lifted by one's art.
They might bring Terry Jones along to contribute his perspective to the presentation.
I voted YES for the simple fact that his use of "free speech" got people killed. Using the freedom of "free speech" comes with responsibilities to society. This person crossed the line and should pay.
The attack on the Bengazzi Consolate had absolutely nothing to do with protest at all. it was a planned terroist (Military Style) assault using mortars and rocket launchers on the anniversary of 9-11
Ted,
So it's OK to disparage Christianity because we do not kill people for it, but not OK to disparage Islam because they do? Does that mean you support blasphemy laws?
John,
Yes! I am a Catholic who does not believe in saying Thank You when someone slaps me in the face. I am a believer in "An eye for an eye". This is a free country and this gives me the right to think as I wish and gives you the right to disagree with me. Let's leave it at that.
One does not lose a right to criticize an institution or a religion because somebody may react negatively to it. The person with the negative reaction is at fault for his reaction, not the speaker. Nobody forced the Muslims who rioted to riot. That was their choice. They're responsible for their actions, nobody else.
And, Ted, as a Catholic, surely you understand that Jesus overturned the Old Testament. He said, rather than an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek.
Our government harasses, defames, and intimidates the maker of a film that disparages Islam, yet gives the artist that created Piss Christ thousands of our tax dollars and it's back on display in New York. Our Secretary of State denounced the film yet raved about seeing the Broadway play Book of Mormon which blasphemes their faith. The White House SAYS that all egregious insults to faith should be denounced yet is completely silent on those who disrespect Mormonism and Christianity.
No Ted it just makes you more Jewish than Catholic, The Torah and the Old Testament all share the same books. If you paid attention in church then you'd realize that to be called Christian you should at least attempt to follow the teachings of Christ. I at least try to practice "turn the other cheek" I am not always successful but that what Christianity is about. Acknowledging that while we all are human and will sin. We are still welcomed by Christ because of his sacrifice to redeem us.
John...I think you meant to say Today's Christians dont kill people for not believing. Even though from the time of the crusades about 500 yrs ago to as recently as the 1800's during the european colonization of north and south america when native cultures were slaughtered for not converting to Christianity.
I have no problem believing the Bible and in science and evolution. To me, they are not mutually exclusive. Faith is mysterious and I don't think I can know and understand all there is about the universe.
Many, if not most, of the great minds of science realize and accept that the astounding complexities of the natural world, prima facie, belie an intelligence that cannot be anchored to a calendar.
There is absolute necessity in adhering to strict protocols in scientific research and it is not diluted, in my mind and heart, by a belief in things unseen and very possibly unknowable.
I would love to know why some
I would love to know why some said yes. Why should free speech be illegal?
I voted yes, but he should be
I voted yes, but he should be punished for violating his parole or probation terms. He was not supposed to use the internet.
Strictly as the poll question
Strictly as the poll question was written, I voted no, as a matter of Free Speech that is.
However, Jason was absolutely correct as well, the man violated his probation which precluded his use of the Internet. From that perspective he should be prosecuted.
I think the poll should have indicated an option 'For his probation violation only'
Jason, I agree with you, I
Jason,
I agree with you, I voted "NO" in that he should not be punished for making the video, but probably should and will be punshied for violating his parole. (allegedly!)
I voted "no" assuming your
I voted "no" assuming your question was related to the Freedom of Speech issue. He certainly should be prosecuted for his parole violations. Perhaps a better wording of your question is needed.
Indeed the film's producers
Indeed the film's producers should not be punished for the content of the film as the film remains protected speech. However, (as pointed out in earlier posts) there are charges reflecting violations of probation terms that may be pursued. There is also a question pending as to whether some of the actors and other personnel associated with the production may have been mislead to secure their participation in the film. In any event, these other charges should not be construed as punishment for perceived objectionable nature of the film's content.
I would suggest to the producers of the film, they might want to present the film within the milieu of their intended audience- perhaps screen it at the next Tehran, Kabul or Islamabad film festival. It's unfortunate that the rave responses to their production have been only indirectly visited upon them. Certainly they deserve to bask, first-hand, in the fruits of their labor. There is nothing more rewarding than experiencing -in person- public emotions lifted by one's art.
They might bring Terry Jones along to contribute his perspective to the presentation.
I voted YES for the simple
I voted YES for the simple fact that his use of "free speech" got people killed. Using the freedom of "free speech" comes with responsibilities to society. This person crossed the line and should pay.
You must not be watching the
You must not be watching the news Ted.
The attack on the Bengazzi Consolate had absolutely nothing to do with protest at all. it was a planned terroist (Military Style) assault using mortars and rocket launchers on the anniversary of 9-11
Ted, So it's OK to disparage
Ted,
So it's OK to disparage Christianity because we do not kill people for it, but not OK to disparage Islam because they do? Does that mean you support blasphemy laws?
John, Yes! I am a Catholic
John,
Yes! I am a Catholic who does not believe in saying Thank You when someone slaps me in the face. I am a believer in "An eye for an eye". This is a free country and this gives me the right to think as I wish and gives you the right to disagree with me. Let's leave it at that.
Free speech is not predicated
Free speech is not predicated on outcomes.
One does not lose a right to criticize an institution or a religion because somebody may react negatively to it. The person with the negative reaction is at fault for his reaction, not the speaker. Nobody forced the Muslims who rioted to riot. That was their choice. They're responsible for their actions, nobody else.
And, Ted, as a Catholic, surely you understand that Jesus overturned the Old Testament. He said, rather than an eye for an eye, turn the other cheek.
And the poll question was intentionally vague.
Guess that makes me a bad
Guess that makes me a bad Catholic and I have to live with it.
Our government harasses,
Our government harasses, defames, and intimidates the maker of a film that disparages Islam, yet gives the artist that created Piss Christ thousands of our tax dollars and it's back on display in New York. Our Secretary of State denounced the film yet raved about seeing the Broadway play Book of Mormon which blasphemes their faith. The White House SAYS that all egregious insults to faith should be denounced yet is completely silent on those who disrespect Mormonism and Christianity.
No Ted it just makes you more
No Ted it just makes you more Jewish than Catholic, The Torah and the Old Testament all share the same books. If you paid attention in church then you'd realize that to be called Christian you should at least attempt to follow the teachings of Christ. I at least try to practice "turn the other cheek" I am not always successful but that what Christianity is about. Acknowledging that while we all are human and will sin. We are still welcomed by Christ because of his sacrifice to redeem us.
John...I think you meant to
John...I think you meant to say Today's Christians dont kill people for not believing. Even though from the time of the crusades about 500 yrs ago to as recently as the 1800's during the european colonization of north and south america when native cultures were slaughtered for not converting to Christianity.
Kyle, You're right. In the
Kyle,
You're right. In the past Christians killed both non Christians and other Christians who were of a different sect.
I'm so glad to be a follower
I'm so glad to be a follower of common sense, unencumbered by the chains of religion
(No subject)
[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU]
I have no problem believing
I have no problem believing the Bible and in science and evolution. To me, they are not mutually exclusive. Faith is mysterious and I don't think I can know and understand all there is about the universe.
Many, if not most, of the great minds of science realize and accept that the astounding complexities of the natural world, prima facie, belie an intelligence that cannot be anchored to a calendar.
There is absolute necessity in adhering to strict protocols in scientific research and it is not diluted, in my mind and heart, by a belief in things unseen and very possibly unknowable.
What is believed, what is
What is believed, what is proven and what is yet to be determined shall always remain an aggregate of human imagination.