Free Speech or Hate Speech

[Don_1967]

An unknown party posted what many called an anti-Muslim cartoon across Yale's campus Wednesday morning, the third recent instance of anonymous postering on campus. The cartoons on the posters - which were taken down mid-morning by members of the Muslim Students Association - depicted the prophet Muhammad with a sword in one hand and a decapitated head in the other, underneath a speech bubble which included the phrase: "Don't mess with Ahmadinejad's nukes.

MSA President Altaf Saadi '08 said she was shocked that the cartoons would be posted on a campus like Yale's and was unhappy that the individuals responsible decided to remain anonymous.... Saadi said the derogatory nature of the cartoon places it in the category of hate speech. "I think discussion about free speech is irrelevant," she said. "This is about something that is blatantly racist and has no place on a campus like Yale."
Full Story :http://www.yaledailynews.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=34375

[burythehatchet]

1. get a life

[Don_1967]

2. Radical Mus limns have killed for less than this

[burythehatchet]

14. as have radical jews and radical hinus and radical snake handlers

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. If the cartoons depicted

a black man with the "N" word or a gay person posed as a pedophile, implying all gays are pedophiles, would you say the same?

I haven't seen the cartoons, but if they simply have a drawing of an Arab labeled "Mohammed", realize it can stand for the Prophet or Islam in general ("Mohammed" is one of the most popular first names for boys on the planet)-and my take on this is that it is a slur against the faith, and shows hatred just as much as a cartoon about blacks or gays would.

[mondo joe]

10. Personally, I'd say the very same thing: people can say what they want, and

the University has the right to remove it (and should).

And cowards are anonymous.

[Mugu]

12. Would you feel the same way if Jesus was substituted for Mohammed?

You have no obligation to answer the question, I only responded to your post because of your comparison to blacks and homosexuals instead of a different religion. I see many threads here at DU that get pretty ugly towards Christians and can't help but wonder where that line is that divides valid criticism/levity/etc. from hate speech. I'm beginning to get the feeling that the main difference is which ox is getting gored.

Regards,

Mugu

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Yes.

The only reason I didn't make that analogy is because Christianity is the religion of the majority in this nation-I was comparing minorities with minorities. I would also say the same thing if they had depicted Zoroaster, Kali-Ma, White Buffalo Calf Maiden, The Bab, etc.

[Igel]

13. They drew what many Muslims think.

You may not think they're Muslims, but they certainly do and would call you takfiriyya if you claimed otherwise. (They, of course, are takfiriyyoun.)

My real question is: Is the problem with the person doing drawing or the preaching?

The drawing is derivative and therefore a symptom. Deal with the imams in Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Yemen, Egypt, in the Maghrib and in Europe ... with the numerous websites depicting Muhammed as having endorsed the killing in Khaybar and therefore the killing in Israel ... and then the people putting the imams' and Muslims' warping of Muhammed and blasphemy against Allah on paper can be cleanly held responsible for their misconceptions. Until then, they're reflecting what "Islam" is for many Muslims, and those Muslims' Muhammed--a violent, hateful tyrant. This is the root cause that the MSA can never bring itself to deal with.

Meanwhile the UCLA MSA is precisely the group that managed to take a fairly secular Sa'udi and make a Jew-hating woman-loathing infidel-cursing completely paranoid and disgusting "devout Muslim" out of him. Perhaps the MSA has cleaned up its act in the last decade. Then again, while this Sa'udi's hate was instilled by the MSA at their private meetings, their public speeches were all about peace and tolerance. They were more concerned with making their exterior seem good than dealing with the rot and corruption inside their own organization. It wasn't just him, however, every MSA member I knew was pretty much the same, more concerned with being respected than being a decent human, more concerned with insulting than with even suspecting maybe they were in the wrong. This was rank hypocrisy on the part of these exponents of the "best nation", commanding evil and forbidding good. (I will also add that I knew quite a few Muslims that shared precisely this attitude wrt the MSA, and sometimes got worse treatment than I got--especially the Shi'a--since they were judged borderline apostate, not merely infidel.)

This left me with the attitude that if the MSA barks, one protects one's ankle while looking for some dog repellant; in other words, the UCLA MSA bred the same hatred towards Muslims that it encouraged in-house towards non-Muslims.

On edit: forgot an apostrophe.

[Ian David]

3. Dumb question: What do you do with the cartoons once you take them down?

I understand that showing a depiction of Muhammad is supposed to be a great blasphemy.

But once you remove them, isn't it also a sacrilege to destroy them?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. No

and the point wasn't that Mohammed was depicted as much as Islam is once again depicted as being hateful and warlike.

The point of not depicting pictures of the Prophet is so that he would not be worshipped. Mohammed was a man, and showed that all people could, without benefit of an intercessor, become enlightened. The words of the Prophet have been twisted by fundamentalists (as have the words of Christ by people like Falwell here in this country), but this doesn't mean that every follower, or even a majority of followers of a certain religion follow the twisted ways of the fundamentalists.

[ck4829]

4. Ahmadinejad doesn't control the nukes. Why are RW'ers always saying that?

Bunch of fools.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. That is correct

In Iran, the real power is held by the Supreme Ayatollah-only he could launch them-and he's been saying otherwise. Of course, the MSM here in the US can't have THAT get out-it would make a Muslim appear to be tolerant and willing to compromise, and Bush doesn't want that-so difficult to justify a preemptive nuclear strike, you know.

[mondo joe]

8. Hate speech can also be free speech.

Free speech isn't required to be nice.

There is no right, however, to keep your posters up unless they are on your property.

[Mugu]

9. MSA President Altaf Saadi '08 said

"This is about something that is blatantly racist and has no place on a campus like Yale."

I can't help but wonder just what race is Muslim? Does this mean that people that bash Christians are also racist?

Continual misuse of the racism tag for every perceived slight will eventually cause the term to loose all meaning.

[Minnesota_Lib]

11. The fact that they were posted anonymously makes it cowardly speech.

But to answer the question, hate speech and free speech are not always mutually exclusive. However, since Yale is a private institution, the question may be moot. This is probably a breech of their code of conduct if perpetrated by students, and those student, if caught, may be subject to expulsion.

On a side note, if they do want to catch the perps, they should probably start their investigation at the campus Young Republicans H.Q. :)