I am not religious, but I do wonder if depictions of Muhammad should be censored by the government. After all, countries like Canada and the U.S. censor words like s***. It sure doesn't seem like we are offended over that word as much as some Muslims are over those depictions. Having said that, there is no excuse for that kind of violence.
Welcome to the forum Cold. If you have a moment link an article with your thoughts, else the thread will lock. I'm no mod, just didn't want you to think no one was listening. Cheers Labour
You can say (*)(*)(*)(*)....... But anyways, justifying something because a government has done it is a recipe for disaster.... seeing how governments are responsible for some of the most heinous human crimes in history.
Well, make it well rounded. Give folks an idea of where you are coming from and how you got there. Give them something to comment upon "larger" than just a statement? Cheers again. Labour
No people cannot say s*** in Canada or the U.S. in public broadcasts. If you do, you will be fined. And if it continues, the government can shut the company down.
And post in the correct area. This is a current event , which needs an event linked to a website....then your commentary. http://www.politicalforum.com/rules.php - - - Updated - - - Not true, its how its " rated" . It has to properly "rate" an item that is going to use (*)(*)(*)(*) and other words. One could still argue though that is a limit on free speech. Also , this was really the important part of what I said .... " But anyways, justifying something because a government has done it is a recipe for disaster.... seeing how governments are responsible for some of the most heinous human crimes in history."
Once you start giving into the demands of one group, it quickly becomes a downward slope. Who's to say the censorship will stop there?
Greetings, Cold Light. I expect your thread will be moved to the Opinions section, but here are the new thread creation rules: To answer your question - No, the U.S. government shouldn't be outlawing depictions of Muhammad and the First Amendment would prevent it from doing so, anyway. I'll add that any American politician who supports the OIC's Istanbul Process should pack their bags and move to Saudi Arabia...
I think the question is really one of responsibility and I see very few people agitating for offensive cartoons to be published for any real reason other than to be offensive while hiding slyly behind the infantile notion that they're practicing freedom of speech or expression. A society filled with bellowing dicks isn't of much value to anyone.
Got it. - - - Updated - - - If a minor can access the content, it is illegal. Live T.V., radio and other public events not controlled for minors cannot use certain language or scenes like nudity and violence.
No, it certainly is not. Its up to the parents to prevent a child from accessing that material as a government can not nanny children 24/7. It may be illegal for a store to SELL minors a rated M game, but its not illegal for the minors to play it or for a parent to provide it. You'll have to link me to a website that shows its illegal to do what you claim, because I do not believe you are correct.
really? even in Canada? that's terrifying, to think adults are treated like preschoolers, and words are invested with magical powers. I do wonder (often) about the sanity of America. here, the F word is legal in public broadcasts and is heard on tv and radio reasonably regularly. Those weirdos who think words have magic powers can easily avoid it by sticking to the dumbed down conservative talk-back stations, and only watching a couple of equally dumbed down and trashy tv channels.
If we look at it historically, Mohammed has been depicted in various murals before. While some hadiths forbid visually depicting Mohammed, the Quran says nothing about it.
You can use profanity at certain hours and even some nudity; other than that it must not be easily accessible to children.
The FCC is pretty annoying here, but over time, their powers have dwindled. The rules regarding radio here are particularly outdated, but you can blame mostly the religious right here for this. Rules for TV are slowly loosening up. The F word is one of the few words that get bleeped, while several other words used to be bleeped as well. Granted, our rules on nudity and sex are even more absurd. A lot of people just watch the premium channels to avoid all of that, since they aren't restricted. - - - Updated - - - A lot of the blame can go to culture. As a religion spreads to areas that weren't originally part of the faith, the local culture adapts things to its preferences. It shows just how malleable and arbitrary religion can be.
Very interseting, thanks for sharing. "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time" No clue what they mean by that because on our televisions you can watch... 1. real sex 2. people having heads cut off 3. etc.. So maybe it means public, open airways such as antenna based programs? Non-Cable? Anyways, its not law against free speech but against the media form you use to display it. So you could write the same words and nasty pictures in a book and publish it. Or you can put your show on cable.
Sometimes, that was the case. Other times, he just looked like a normal person. Wikipedia has a few good pictures showing different examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad
