Baltic and Nordic Headlines::
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML(Copenhagen Post in Jyllands-Posten online www.jp.dk, 5 April 2006) .. automatically and they will not have to comply with the language requirement,"
http://www.unhcr.se/SE/News/pdf/April_2006.pdfHOME |
The Danish Director of Public Prosecutions will not prosecute Jyllands Posten. Here are his reasons:-
http://www.rigsadvokaten.dk/ref.aspx?id=890
Any point e-mailing about this?
arent these the same idiots who have an anti-holocaust law?
Hopefully, all nations of the world will one day have "anti-Holocaust" laws. There have been enough Holocausts.
If you mean "Holocaust denial" law, then the answer is NO.
Denmark has not criminalized Holocaust-denial.
They are simply words.
You are allowed to say threatening words just as I'm allowed to type what I'm typing now.
We can't allow one form of speech without allowing another form of speech. If its free, it has to be free.
COMMUNICATION::
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTMLI will not meet with them because it is so crystal clear what principles Danish . statements indicating that Denmark would not prosecute Jyllands-Posten.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cerd/docs/ngos/danish_cartoons.docHOME |
Pickled Politics ยป Jyllands-Posten previously rejected Jesus cartoons::
I never knew Jyllands posten before this whole escalation of the cartoon .. Therefore, we will not accept a transformation to a multiethnic society.
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/280HOME |
... can you not differentiate something offensive and something that is a threat?
When you threaten me for example, you are intruding my right to security and hampered my ability to live. Right to be not offensive is not a right guaranteed in the West, whether or not you think it should be. Because then, just about anything can offend anyone. Like people eating meat offend vegetarians, and people eating plants offend environmentalists or nature loving people. As you can see, life is not possible to live when things and actions that offend others are not being allowed to do.
Oh, I don't want that at all. I'm a libertarian, and I believe we should have more freedoms, not less with creative language.
I do too but lets face it, its impossible to live in a world without offending any one. But it is possible to live in a world without threatening any one. The thing is that we have to be realistic. What you saying about either we have full freedom of speech or we don't can be compared to someone calling for direct democracy where people make the decisions instead of their representations or we don't have democracy at all. Now you know as well as i do that it is suicidal for a nation like US to have a direct democracy. We have to take things that work and kick out things that do not.
QFT!
Free speech means freedom of speech about everything, not just subjects that don't offend. You are allowed to say that you want to behead her just as she is allowed to draw offensive cartoons.
There is quite a difference between something being offensive and something being threatened.
millions of slaughtered hindus?
LOL, whatever, try saying that to some people and see yourself being shipped into police custody. Why do you think with all the things going around in the world today and in the US, with as many as Bush haters in the US there are in the public and in the media, no one has even called for assassination for Bush, which is a threat. It isn't because people are nicer these days incase you are thinking of that.
OXFORD::
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLIt will not be possible to recount here all the various newsworthy on free expression were rekindled in 2006, when the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199217007/01student/cases/mckinnon_ch10_cases.pdfHOME |
I never said that what I believe is the way things are. I know very well that I don't really have true freedom of speech in this country.
I said that free speech is free speech, and if we are truely going to have free speech, we need to have it, or quit saying it altogether.
... can you not differentiate something offensive and something that is a threat?
When you threaten me for example, you are intruding my right to security and hampered my ability to live. Right to be not offensive is not a right guaranteed in the West, whether or not you think it should be. Because then, just about anything can offend anyone. Like people eating meat offend vegetarians, and people eating plants offended environmentalists or nature loving people. As you can see, life is not possible to live when things and actions that offend others are not being allowed to do.
Saying a threat isn't actually doing something to harm you. Words cannot hurt someone. However, if I act upon these words, then you have every right to defend yourself.
I cannot condone codemnation of anyone simply based upon words. Words and actions are a different story altogether.
you dont make sense at all. a vegetarian maybe offended becuase other poeple eat meat but thats not a direct insult & an attempt to stir religious hatred against him,the cartoons are threatning for muslims becuase this is saying your faith is terrorism faith & is also affects the lives of the muslims living in western countries & subject them to more abuse & rejection.
It all depends on how you look at things. ANYTHING, i repeat ANYTHING, can be offensive to someone. Bush is offended because people draw him as a monkey, Karl Marx is offended because many people redicule his idea about communism, people like the Hindus might be offended because millions eat their sacred animal cow.
And no, i seen the cartoons and no one in the West was up in arms about to abuse some muslims. The cartoons were draw on how some muslims like Bin Laden portray Islam to be, and how some even here portray it to be. And as you can see, the only reason for abuse and rejection of muslims can only be found in their violent responds throughout the world, not someone who draws cartoons on things that are concerning this world. Lets talk about that cartoon with a person saying "Stop! we have run out of virgins!" to the suicide bombers, now how is that offensive when it is just repeating what many in this forum have already confirmed that they do get virgins in heaven.
Maybe the cartoons are a warning that moderate muslims need to step up pressure on extremist muslims because in an average western mind, the extremists are actually controlling how Islam is being viewed and what Islam is. The cartoons' meaning are simple, extremists have taken over how Islam is being viewed, its time for the moderates to beat back that negative view that extremists portray Islam to be. Rioting around the world doesn't help.
Any point e-mailing about this?
Absolutely YES. A wonderful idea.
I just emailed Henning Fode, Director of Public Prosecutions, to thank him for standing up for free speech.
Free Speech With Exceptions is NOT Free Speech.
Millions of slaughtered Hindus might disagree.
:rotfl::rofl1:
Saying a threat isn't actually doing something to harm you. Words cannot hurt someone. However, if I act upon these words, then you have every right to defend yourself.
I cannot condone codemnation of anyone simply based upon words. Words and actions are a different story altogether.
Words can harm the way how i live. I don't or any1 can live properly knowing that people who threaten me or others literally are out in the public without any restrictions. One of the fundemental rights in the West is the right to live without being threatened. You may find that its not so bad to live knowing that people who threaten you or the public are allow to live without any restriction but many of us don't. And luckily, sane people outnumber insane people now in the US, as in the past and will be in the future.
Now i know why Jewish extermination by Nazis and world war two started, there were people like you who beleived in the view that you viewed while Hitler was writing a book and publishing it about how he was going to conquer lands and enslave other races...
The islamic world has anti-holocauts laws, built in
Did anyone here actually expect any legal action against them?
I never said that what I believe is the way things are. I know very well that I don't really have true freedom of speech in this country.
I said that free speech is free speech, and if we are truely going to have free speech, we need to have it, or quit saying it altogether.
Well luckily we have the system we have today where people can live without feeling threatened. Maybe we do need to change the term to "Speech until you make a threat" There you and many others like can live in agreement. :D
Words can harm the way how i live. I don't or any1 can live properly knowing that people who threaten me or others literally are out in the public without any restrictions. One of the fundemental rights in the West is the right to live without being threatened. You may find that its not so bad to live knowing that people who threaten you or the public are allow to live without any restriction but many of us don't. And luckily, sane people outnumber insane people now in the US, as in the past and will be in the future.
Now i know why Jewish extermination by Nazis and world war two started, there were people like you who beleived in the view that you viewed while Hitler was writing a book and publishing it about how he was going to conquer lands and enslave other races...
I've never read anything about freedoms other than some like the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and unalienable rights like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nowhere in the US constitution does it say anything that prohibits me from saying that I'm going to attack someone. I can and should be able to say anything I would like.
Words themselves cannot harm anything or anyone. They are just words.
Had I actually assaulted you, that's a different story. Saying I might assault even though I couldn't and wouldn't, that doesn't hurt you or your family.
Words are words, and we have to allow them all or we can no longer say that we have true freedom of speech.
There is quite a difference between something being offensive and something being threatened.
They are simply words.
You are allowed to say threatening words just as I'm allowed to type what I'm typing now.
We can't allow one form of speech without allowing another form of speech. If its free, it has to be free.
I've never read anything about freedoms other than some like the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and unalienable rights like Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Nowhere in the US constitution does it say anything that prohibits me from saying that I'm going to attack someone. I can and should be able to say anything I would like.
Words themselves cannot harm anything or anyone. They are just words.
Had I actually assaulted you, that's a different story. Saying I might assault even though I couldn't and wouldn't, that doesn't hurt you or your family.
Words are words, and we have to allow them all or we can no longer say that we have true freedom of speech.
Umm what do you think unalienable right to life means? It means being able to live without being threatened! Your right to free speech extends until it invades my right to life. And your threat hampers my ability to live life.
Well luckily we have the system we have today where people can live without feeling threatened. Maybe we do need to change the term to "Speech until you make a threat" There you and many others like can live in agreement. :D
Oh, I don't want that at all. I'm a libertarian, and I believe we should have more freedoms, not less with creative language.
The islamic world has anti-holocauts laws, built in
Millions of slaughtered Hindus might disagree.
... can you not differentiate something offensive and something that is a threat?
When you threaten me for example, you are intruding my right to security and hampered my ability to live. Right to be not offensive is not a right guaranteed in the West, whether or not you think it should be. Because then, just about anything can offend anyone. Like people eating meat offend vegetarians, and people eating plants offend environmentalists or nature loving people. As you can see, life is not possible to live when things and actions that offend others are not being allowed to do.
you dont make sense at all. a vegetarian maybe offended becuase other poeple eat meat but thats not a direct insult & an attempt to stir religious hatred against him,the cartoons are threatning for muslims becuase this is saying your faith is terrorism faith & is also affects the lives of the muslims living in western countries & subject them to more abuse & rejection.
I do too but lets face it, its impossible to live in a world without offending any one. But it is possible to live in a world without threatening any one. The thing is that we have to be realistic. What you saying about either we have full freedom of speech or we don't can be compared to someone calling for direct democracy where people make the decisions instead of their representations or we don't have democracy at all. Now you know as well as i do that it is suicidal for a nation like US to have a direct democracy. We have to take things that work and kick out things that do not.
Bunch of pinko commie libruls both of you. McCarthy would have had you strung up.
Umm what do you think unalienable right to life means? It means being able to live without being threatened! Your right to free speech extends until it invades my right to life. And your threat hampers my ability to live life.
How do words stop your life? They do not.
If I come at you threatening you, you have the right to defend yourself, but I cannot be held legally accountable because of something that was merely said.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to defend yourself or your family, but there's no reason that I should be prevented from saying these things.
If I do threaten you, and you slug me in the face, I'm getting what I deserve. Should I be prevented from threatening you? No. Its just words said. Should you be prevented from retaliating when you feel threatened? No.
maybe ummah.com shud prosecute them all!
They are simply words.
You are allowed to say threatening words just as I'm allowed to type what I'm typing now.
We can't allow one form of speech without allowing another form of speech. If its free, it has to be free.
Then came the concept of libel...
arent these the same idiots who have an anti-holocaust law?
How do words stop your life? They do not.
If I come at you threatening you, you have the right to defend yourself, but I cannot be held legally accountable because of something that was merely said.
I'm not saying you don't have the right to defend yourself or your family, but there's no reason that I should be prevented from saying these things.
If I do threaten you, and you slug me in the face, I'm getting what I deserve. Should I be prevented from threatening you? No. Its just words said. Should you be prevented from retaliating when you feel threatened? No.
LOL, whatever, try saying that to some people and see yourself being shipped into police custody. Why do you think with all the things going around in the world today and in the US, with as many as Bush haters in the US there are in the public and in the media, no one has even called for assassination for Bush, which is a threat. It isn't because people are nicer these days incase you are thinking of that.
Absolutely YES. A wonderful idea.
I just emailed Henning Fode, Director of Public Prosecutions, to thank him for standing up for free speech.
Free Speech With Exceptions is NOT Free Speech.
QFT!
Free speech means freedom of speech about everything, not just subjects that don't offend. You are allowed to say that you want to behead her just as she is allowed to draw offensive cartoons.
 Where's The Advantage In Windows Genuine Advantage?
 Stocks Bounce After S&P Joins Bear Market |
HOME
PRINT
Add to favorites