Freedom of Speech Is Not Dead Yet

(taken from )

(taken from )

Recently, Ubaydullah Hussain (he’s kind of our Norwegian Muslim ISIS-cheerleader) was persecuted for inciting terrorism, but was aquitted. And for a good reason too, as all he was doing was cheering each time the terrorists performed a successful attack, and hoping that Allah rewards them with Paradise.  The courts decided the law can’t be applied so vaguely, and cheering when someone dies is not illegal, or incitement of terrorism. His words might be offensive, but those are his opinions and nothing more. This persecution case is actually very similar to my boyfriend’s.

But I’m surprised over how many people in the comments section were disappointed he didn’t go to jail. There are several reasons why I think they should change their mind.

  1. Don’t people realize that it was THEIR constitutional, humanist values that won the day when Ubaydullah Hussain was acquitted?
  2. You don’t have to respect the man to respect his rights. Because he doesn’t have more or fewer than you, no matter how much you hate him. Respecting his rights is respecting your own.
  3. It’s funny to wish jail on this guy, but tolerate other people cheering for other types of violence. The acceptable types of violence. It’s ok to cheer if your country beats up ISIS or some other dictator (accidentally killing a bunch of civilians – it always happens), it’s ok to cheer if someone is beaten into a pulp cuz they punched their dog, it’s ok to cheer if a pedophile is raped in prison. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feel sorry for those people anyway. On the other side of the border, your opponent has a family too, and they’ll hate your guts if you bomb them. And they’ll cheer if your family is killed back. What violence is ok to cheer for, is kinda subjective.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Freedom of Speech Is Not Dead Yet

  1. Eric says:

    It’s not always offensive, Emma. Even in the Old Testament, there’s a verse that reads: “When the wicked die, there is cheering.”

    Sad but true: some people do their greatest service to humanity by dying.

  2. Eric says:

    Off-topic, but since you mentioned Brigette Bardot in a recent article as the ‘most beautiful woman ever’, the wingnuts in the sex-negative MHRM have declared that people who find Bardot attractive must be ‘paedophiles’.

    • emmatheemo says:

      Ah yes, I have skimmed through that. I was avoiding it for a while, because I know that if an AVfM article has “pedophile” in the title, there is very likely lots of pedophile hysteria in the text.
      So it seems he was attacking Simone de Beauvoir for (among other things) thinking Brigitte Bardot was attractive and childlike. I dunno if he’s directly saying finding BB attractive means you’re a pedophile. Frankly, the whole article is kinda ad hommy. I’m glad commenter Sanguifer pointed that out. All these appeals to emotion by using strong words is just muddying the rhetoric for me.

      • Eric says:

        In the context he wrote it: “the 1959 article was just the beginning” and then connects it to Simone’s advocacy for imprisoned men jailed under paedohysterical laws, he very strongly implies that anyone who found Brigette attractive was a paedophile. The rest of the article itself was mostly ad-hominem Futrelle-fodder.

  3. Clarence says:

    To be fair to AVFM in that article, it is strongly implied (and I have not and do not intend to investigate one way or the other) that Simone and Sartre didn’t even care much about the ages of the partners they had sex with, and if any were prepubescents, it’s totally fair and accurate to call them pedophiles.

    Course nowadays the term is often applied to even those who like older teens(16 plus) as well, so its started to cease to mean anything.

    • Eric says:

      Well, for starters, Brigette Bardot was 25 when Simone De Beauvoir wrote the article about her. It was evidently Simone’s praising of her young looks that had the AVfM crew worked up.

      “So its started to cease to have any meaning.”

      True, but that was Simone’s point in calling for the revision of the laws. She was basically arguing that it should be lowered to the age of puberty (according to the article, she wanted it cut off at 11)—so she clearly wasn’t advocating for legalizing genuine paedophilia.

      And it was MEN that she was lobbying to get released from prison—I thought the MHRM was all about keeping innocent men out of jail!

      If I were writing the article myself, I would have turned the issue around and pointed out far today’s sex-negative and anti-femininity feminists had departed from Simone’s original teachings.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s