I don't really see how it is possible to inhibit free speech without some sort of physical interference i.e. Censorship or incapacitating, imprisoning someone in which case you *are* negatively impacting on their property, which is against the concept of freedom imo.
A threat is mere words. Speech is speech regardless of its origin or any real implied action at a later time. I don't think it's right to say that you can restrict someone's ability to make threats, you can only restrict their ability to carry out threats. This can be done in a manner of ways, some more pragmatic than others. You can have police stationed at every single office, home and public place, for example. You could also allow people to carry arms in order to defend themselves in light of any attempts to carry out any sort of threat of violence.
Are you saying that all pieces of expression that negatively impact someone's feelings should be banned?
OK play coy - waste my time if you insist.
Not trolling? Intelligent post yes? Cant wait to read your thesis.
- Theres the idiotic generalisations I was talking about.
Does imply that all christians are dumb as far as I'm concerned despite your belief that I do not understand the english language. Do you think there are smart christians out there? Just out of curiosity.
well, he has the right to remain silent
Funny. Our speech laws allow a conference where the goal is to convince all the attendees to support and push for a future state where free speech is banned. Iffy.
I attended the Khillifah conference where this girl spoke. She is the daughter of a prominant member of Hizb Ut-Tahrir. She did not call upon young Australian Muslims to go out and fight in the name of Jihad. She was talking mostly about the problems faced by young brothers and sisters of Islam in Syria. It is a very concerning thing for Muslims to see the youth of these nations being so heavilty traumatised by what is occured. Children watch their families murdered. Not many in Australia can comprehend this kind of life. This life which has been brought about by puppet regimes and Western influence in the region.
An Islamic state does not condone free speech but it is encouraging of speech which promotes that which is beneficial to muslim people and is.. Islamically conducive - So I dont see the contradiction.
don't you dare blame that shit on the west.
I can see ten unusual things about that article, among them;
he didn't blame it on the western culture at all. All he said was that some Western powers such as the United States have had political (and in some cases, military) influences over the region, which is a fact. Whether or not such influences were positive or not is subject to debate, but there is no denying that some people are justifiably/unjustifiably pissed off about it.
I kind of agree, but at the same time I'm also torn because no-one reads a legitimate death threat and just shrug and say "well, he's allowed to say that but he won't ever hurt me because the law says he can't." If someone says "stop saying such and such or I will kill you" and the threat is legitimate then plenty of people would shut up because of that threat. Under your rules this would seem to be be perfectly fair. So the idea that someone can use their freedom of speech to destroy my freedom of speech is repugnant to me. Yes, I realise the only way that you can in turn stop the person that was originally making the threats is to silence them and this creates a contradiction, but I prefer to think of it mostly as "you have this right, but if you misuse it the state reserves the right to take that away from you." That can create a slippery slope to all sorts of populist or dictatorial silencing, but as long as it was clearly spelt out to begin with as "freedom of speech unless that speech inhibits the freedom of others" then I think it can maintain internal consistency without leading to a totalitarian outcome (in liberal democracies anyway).
Go educate yourself. Under previous Caliphate rule the Muslim lands were prosperous and forward thinking. They were FAR more learned than western civilisations in a variety of fields... scientific, business, architecture and other art forms.
he just said "western influence"
Yes, which is why the Middle East has maintained itself as the centre of learning, culture and influence for the past millennium. Oh wait. Nevermind.
I completely disagree with their agendas. I think the very notion of expanding something as personal as religion into a political force is ridiculously stupid as it inherently creates division and excludes people who don't follow the religion. Furthermore, Hizb-ut-Tahrir have consistently promoted extremist behaviour completely at odds with what many Muslims believe.
It's so nice to see someone who actually thinks about it. Hizb Ut-Tahrir is a fundamentalist organisation - they are NOT extremist's by my definition of the word. They intend to promote an Islamic state in the middle-east alone. Not a global one.