Freedom of Speech or not; That's the Problem!
It seems that an old conflict has started about what should to write and what not to.
We all know that we are living in some counteries that have no freedom of speech and everyone would be prisoned for saying or bashing some sacred!
First conclusion: our governments are terrorist, as the US, states that!
And where does it come from? Is US still right by saying that its from our idealogy! I don’t know!
The aim of this website is to survey on the mideast youth, his idealogy, belief, religion, philosophy of life and give a chance of freedom of speech to him. But why?
Here we know we suffer from lack of freedom of speech in our counteries, and this is place to get rid of these bonds!
But we shouldn’t say anything because of endengering another one freedom!
Second conclusion: Why do we write here If we cant write about religion? Why we write here if here we have no freedom of speech?
Arent we living in middle east? If we do, so one of our great subjects that we challenge everyday, is religion and particularly Islam! Wasn’t the aim of this website to contribute on Islam? Wasn’t lack of freedom of speech?
I did chang my post about the Quran and its anti-jewish views. Because it may hurt the webmaster; I didn’t really cared what the believers may think or hurt. Here the existence of administrator was important to me! It really was, because I know what is imprisoning in such of counteries!
Third concolusion: if we cant have freedom of speech here, two theories are possible:
This site is not a place for freedom of speech anymore, OR we shouldn’t write about Religion, Islam, Muslims faith, Israel and some other related subjects!
What should we do?
Join the Conversation
I think your last conclusion is wrong, because we do not have to choose between those two alternatives. The problem, mentioned in the debates before, aren’t the topics, it is the dealing with certain topics.
You shouldn’t generalize and you shouldn’t accuse biased! Take real facts, consider them critical, rethink your analysis and then post on this site.
I agree with Marten in principle, but not in practice. The individual safety of people should not rely on our own personal judgements, often made on little sleep and too much caffeine. However, no one should feel censored. If these conversations can’t take place here, where can they?
The solution is that each poster should create an appropriate level of security/anonymity around his or herself. I post with my real name; someone else might use a tag or even be vague about their location and explain this to the administrator, who can approve it.
The problem is that our administrator is a very public person who cannot hide herself with anonymity. What do you guys suggest?
I would really like to see us engage in conversations about religion and politics and culture. This is something that I find incredibly important. The question becomes: how can we do this without endangering anyone? I am sure that it can be done. Positive. The key to doing it is not to infuse the conversation with opinion but rather simply to site examples. Is this possible? Am I wrong?
For instance, someone pointed out that some people point to female circumcision as a Muslim practice when it is really a cultural practice that is not Islamic at all. Is it so hard for us to talk about what is real and what is not?
Another question we might want to ask ourselves is this: do we need an independent and separate site for free for alls?
And the final question is this: When we do have free for alls, who benefits? Does the conversation lead anywhere at all? Let me quote from an essay I read on inter-cultural dialog:
(emphasis mine)
Freedumb of speech.
I feel that freedom of speech is not an issue, here or on most other blogs. The real issue is to be able to articulate your ideas and points to not sound like a belligerent conspirator. Name calling, insults, and defamatory statements are childish and ineffective.
The better and more effective your writing, the more effective your argument. The scariest thing to a government is if the people simply realize the truth.
Lord Kavi, do you know what false dilemma is? If you don’t, look it up, it explains your post.
And, like Omid said, interfaith understanding doesn’t come from pissing on each other. If you want to piss on Islam, I am sure there are tones of other sites out there that allows it. They are usually run by, nazi scum buckets and racist dipshits, I am sure you’ll fit in quiet nicely there.
Enjoy yourself now.
Jina:
I did never piss on something and pissing on is not a beautiful way of talking that you used!
Here we are all muslims and my article never meant insulting Islam! It questioned something simple (no offensive) that you and people like you just cant tolerate it!
I dont really understand the way you’re talking, it is offensive!
do you really believe that asking some fundanemtal questions about our religion is pissing on? it seems your some kind of Dogma!
I invite you to think!
Lord Kavi:
I would say emotionally attached.
Agree! there’s no way.
It needs time, consideration, education and peatience.
Just I am not generalizing but most likely they don’t accept logic because they emotionally attached.
I think so the main problem with emotionally attached subjects is people won’t let others to discuss and talk about it.
No Fariborz, you are once again wrong. No one is stopping you from discussing anything. I am getting so tired of your complaints when you don’t at all attempt to understand the situation and risks at hand. You have a lot to learn from Lord Kavi who is very mature, responsible, and understanding, unlike you.
Esra’a:
I am tired of your bias accusation! Who said that you stopping me from discussing anything?
Excuse me! you read Lord Kavi’s blog about “Allah; the ideologist of Arab-Jewish wars?” before you encourage him to write here then later you sent an email and expressed the situation and risks! so he decided to change his article! and removed all verses! and he stated:
If there was situation and risks at hand, why at the first place you invite him to write over when he had an obvious question about Quran?
The Lord Kavi end up to confusion that generated this article and asks questions! Which he’s right.
So if there is a situation and risks (which I don’t say it’s not), it should come in policies and practices section of site that prevent any confusion at the first place.
Fariborz,
You are right.