११ डिसेंबर, २०१२
"The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist."
Only 7. And it's not really about being atheist. It's about talking about it. This is the old freedom of speech issue, and we still have a problem with that in the United States. Last I noticed, that man who made the "Innocence of Muslims" video was in prison, right here in the U.S.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४१ टिप्पण्या:
I wonder if anyone has a list of states that can execute people for being/talking about being Christian, Muslim, or any other faith.
When up against charges, it might not be a smart move to argue the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
Progressives think criticizing Islam is a criminal offense.
Interestingly enough, "atheism" was one of the charges against early Christians that led to their execution.
Blasphemy Laws are a traditional part of Rule by Priests associated in an alliance with the Government.
The closest we seem to come to that today is attacking Global Warming Deniers. Denier's speech does disrespect the current High Priesthood's religious/governmental alliance.
Free Speech came out of the reformation as a Calvinist tradition that lets let God defend himself, lest we get it wrong.
the country that appears to most frequently condemn atheists to death for their beliefs is actually a democracy, if a frail one: Pakistan
It has never been the case that the presence of Democracy does not in and of itself guarantee personal freedoms. People can always vote their freedoms away.
It's ok that Nakoula is in jail because he was put there to help a Democrat's reelection campaign. But you knew that, even Garage knows that.
IMO, the real problem with the Nakoula arrest is not that he was arrested for his speech, but that he was arrested for a "parole violation." Every one of us is guilty of something, always, so any time they want to bring us in, they can.
And if the president is a Democrat, liberals won't care.
Last I noticed, that man who made the "Innocence of Muslims" video was in prison, right here in the U.S.
Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli.
"Last I noticed, that man who made the "Innocence of Muslims" video was in prison, right here in the U.S."
Last I noticed, the leading conservative First Amendment scholar had no problem with that.
It's one thing to disagree with Professor Volokh, but you seem to disagree without providing any actual reasons why he's wrong.
And, of course, the atheists just want to ban anybody who believes in God to the re-education camps.
PS Almost all Moslem. There's a shocker.
There are states here in the U.S. with laws prohibiting atheists from holding public office or testifying in trials. I'm sure they haven't been enforced in ages, but they are still on the books.
The 20th century was ruled by atheists. The state had a right to execute someone for practicing religion. It seems that in the 21st century the tables have been turned.
So progresses the "Tutsi slaughter Hutu slaughter Tutsi" historical cycle, which exploits differentials and gradients for some group's cause.
That's seven too many.
And Nakoula is in jail basically to intimidate people who would otherwise be exercising their right of free speech in ways the administration finds distasteful.
AF: Do you have a link to where Volokh said he's fine with Nakoula's imprisonment? I have searched myself and have only found this and a quote from an LA Times article where he said "I think it's interesting enough that people should be asking questions... It's not obvious what the answer is."
Volokh wrote (link): "Sounds like a liar was convicted for harmful lies, and when he's released he's shown that he's not at all rehabilitated. That supports Popehat's observation that 'Nakoula's conduct is absolutely the sort that does, and should, routinely result in revocation of supervised release.'"
Sorry, here's the link.
edutcher,
RE: your p.s.
No the seven are all, not almost all, muslim states.
In fact, the only one I noticed of the expanded list that might not be majority Muslim is Laos.
You are correct.
My bad.
Is he in prison for making the video? Just because you do something controversial does not mean you get a free pass to violate other laws. I would think it is not his views that got him cooling his heels at the counties expense, but his actions.
Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli.
Ugh.
Is Jesusland one of them? No? Wait a second, that's not what I've been told.
Is he in prison for making the video? Just because you do something controversial does not mean you get a free pass to violate other laws. I would think it is not his views that got him cooling his heels at the counties expense, but his actions.
Aren't parole violators usually busted when they violate their parole, not months later, when it seems politically expedient?
I mean, I get it — they didn't know he was breaking parole with his actions —they must not have kept close tabs on him or anything ... right? It wasn't until Susan Rice went on TV that they definitively had any idea what Nakouly was up to, obviously.
Savages.
"Aren't parole violators usually busted when they violate their parole, not months later, when it seems politically expedient?"
Parole violators are usually busted when they get caught violating their parole.
No question that the parole violations came to law enforcement's attention because of the video. But once they know about it, what are they supposed to do? Ignore it? Treat if differently than they would have if it had come to their attention in another way?
A Unreasonable Man said..
Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli.
Wow. Just wow.
You are no more believable in your concern for the Jews than Cedarford would be. Or your boy Obama.
Washington Post info-graphic fail.
Anyone surprised by which ones they are?
Parole violators are usually busted when they get caught violating their parole.
Yes, but I'd be curious to see what was known about Nakouly's video before it was finally shown in Egypt.
Yeah, he's back in prison because (cough, cough) he violated (cough, cough) the terms (cough, cough) of his probation.
Yeah, that's the [ticket] reason.
And Obama is actually married to Morgan Fairchild.
AF said...
Treat it differently than they would have if it had come to their attention in another way?
This is what they did do, unless you think police send multiple officers to arrest non-violent offenders in the middle of the night after tipping off the media. It's also disingenuous to assert that parole violators are arrested when discovered. Police rarely make an effort to track down known violators unless the violating act is sufficiently high priority to warrant a search.
"Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli."
Defending the basic human rights of people I don't like? Inconceivable!
"Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli."
You should study the law of free speech and "incitement." Would you have rushed to the defense of the man named Brandenburg?
It seems fitting that the appellant in Althouse's cite means "burned fortress."
Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli.
He made a video purporting that Muslims were ignorant savages. By their actions, they did their best to prove him right.
Althouse just cannot wrap her mind around the idea that scumbags like Nakoula on probation lose certain Sacred Parchment rights.
And when they screw up, it is rare that a major probation violation does not put them right back in jail. No "big trial, no wise jury" - just an administrative hearing and the probation violator is tossed behind bars to serve the rest of their sentence.
Tim McGwire -
IMO, the real problem with the Nakoula arrest is not that he was arrested for his speech, but that he was arrested for a "parole violation." Every one of us is guilty of something, always, so any time they want to bring us in, they can.
What criminal offense were you convicted of Tim, that put you behind bars then allowed out before your sentence was done, on probation?
What terms of your probation do you disagree with and don't think you need to follow, as a condition for being free to serve a period of time out of jail, but under restrictions related to your crime..or general stupid stuff like no drinking for white collar frauds that you still agreed to..
At your probation hearing, did you say you disagreed with the conditions for release and planned on not following them and if caught - it would be an Outrage against the Constitution if they threw you in the slammer to do the rest of your sentence??
EMD said...
Althouse once again rushing to the defense of a man who attempted to incite violence against Jews by posing as a rich Israeli.
==============
I am more concerned he admitted that his goal was to incite Muslims to kill and harm Americans. The Jews were just adder, as he was posing as a Jew to deflect from who many of his financiers were.
Contrary to dirtballs like Trooper York, the average Jews well-being is not more important than the average Americans.
It isn't all about the Jews!! - Trooper.
If you wish to bootlick Jews here and abroad as more precious and valuable than Americans of all stripes - that is fine for you.Have your jollies!
Ann Althouse said...
Would you have rushed to the defense of the man named Brandenburg?
I would not have rushed but I also would not have objected to the ACLU defending him. I almost invariably agree with all the ACLU's effort to defend free speech. On the other hand, if Brandenburg was subsequently arrested following a legitimate parole violation I would not have attempted to concoct conspiracy theories around such an outcome.
Baron Zemo said...
You are no more believable in your concern for the Jews than Cedarford would be. Or your boy Obama.
You are aware that Jews trend Democrat in their voting patterns, aren't you? Collectively Jews voted for Obama.
Cedarford-
Stop quoting me if you cannot quote me correctly.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा