Discretion for what? Free speech = only that speech which you approve of... That's not free speech...
Mia, do you have free speech on this forum? Of course not. It's private property. Likewise, Wikipedia has no right to free speech, they have private property rights over their content. My issue is with how they exercise those rights. Anyone who has spent time as an editor will tell you that free speech is not their mandate. When private entities use their property rights in an unfavorable (legitimate or not) manner, the market will be the judge. Free speech is a protected right only with regards to the government, and it's laws. Not in your home, not in your workplace, and not on the internet.
Hahahah. Well, yeah, when wrapped in a debate, I do enjoy the back and forth. But regarding this one, quite sorry, actually - I'd love to let it go. But you have said some things I feel need a response. By yeoman's standards, I think wiki defines the concept well enough: Now, to our debate, I think we're talking two things, here, Guerilla. One is philosophy. Does one believe a private site should be able to say what it wants, or not? I would think, based on your pretty strong statement "no restrictions on free speech"-you'd be defending Wiki's right to say what it wants to say, not seeking restriction on that right. But legally, from at least this ex-paralegal's perspective, I contend you're wrong. The right to freedom of speech isn't the right to speak freely, with the citizen or private entity on one side and the government on the other. It is the right of a citizen or private entity to speak, free from interference, from anyone. It is wiki's right to free speech that we are arguing, not its right to curb free speech. And the right to free speech doesn't stop at the private doorstop. If anything, it is a stronger presumption of right. My home, for instance - do I not have the right to say what I would, regardless of whether saying it would offend some? How about visitors to my home - some like my thoughts, some don't - am I to curb my speech to conform with sensibilities? No. It is very much a right to free speech issue. Now, Ala is free to speak out against it, even try to raise a petition to remove them. But he has zero basis to demand it, and Wiki doesn't have to do a damn thing. Beside all this, commonsensically, the OP's views are made explicitly known already in Wiki: There is no "bias" in restricting to one point of view. Quite the contrary. Sure. Beyond the ones I asked of the general population (again, please see #77, 80, and posts where these are asked again), there were many posts I made in response to yours that weren't literally questions, but took substantive and detailed issue with your contentions (see above - too lengthy to repeat). These, really, require a response, it seems to me. But of the direct questions, there are a couple to you that I think make the contention clear: I'll add a direct question, since I contained the implied question within my thoughts above. You said: I pointed out, the page already exists. I note Ala was on earlier, but neglected to make mention of this. Should a similar row be made, as I expect it very much would be - for the reason I state above, that for some sunnis, such as Ala, apparently, all images are prohibited, and should be removed - would you then disagree with this effort to remove the page? Do you support Wiki's right to this page? I respect Islam, and Muslims' right to the free practice of their faith. Many Muslims, in fact, see images such as these as a good thing for their faith, serving a good purpose. I respect my right to the unimpinged viewing of artistic and historical works even more. I cannot conceive of a land populated by museums and educational institutions stripped almost entirely of their content, in order to adhere to the religious sensibilities of various faiths. Even if you think the images are, on substance, the wrong thing to do, I also just cannot know how you can be as vociferous in your defense of free speech: And maintain what you are maintaining here. Oh, and your Avatar. It makes Paul look like an Orwellian Big Brother. It offends me to the core. Please remove it. (Kidding, brother, with only a touch of acid on the tip of the foil).
Wikipedia has an obligation to tell the factual truth, Regardless if that truth offends or not. If an image depicting mohamad exists, Which it does, They are not just entitled to display it, They are obligated to display it. I can't believe someone like guerilla who purports to be an opposer of oppression and a proponent of freedom would defend a religions right to deny others education. The painting exists, I'm sorry if they don't like it, But that's just tough. Your time would be better spent, guerilla, telling them to exercise some self control and simply refrain from going to a webpage that causes them great distress. That's what i do when i don't like something on a webpage. I don't think you would be here defending me if i was to demand wikipedia take down the page for arsenal, I hate them, they offend me. No, It takes a religion to get special treatment and to get others to defend something that can only be described as an oppressive demand.
No it doesn't. Don't confuse Wikipedia with a public entity. It is not. See above. Strawman. I never said that, you're putting words into my mouth. I agree that it is tough, Wikipedia has the right to display it, that's a private property right. What I do not agree with is that they posted it. And yes, I have already posted that the market will speak if their decision is unpopular, fair or not. You may have the right to say that George Bush is a f**king idiot, half lizard, and his head is filled with cow dung. You're entitled to say it, but I don't have to approve of you saying it, or agree with it. One has to understand what freedom is, before you can purport to lecture others on how it should be applied. Freedom is an opportunity, not morality or righteousness. Freedom can be, and has been misapplied. It's a wonderful and necessary thing to have, but that doesn't mean it should be used irresponsibly. For example, if I make a site about hating white people. I have property rights to do so, and the government cannot pass a law to restrict those rights. But just because I can, and it is legal, doesn't validate hate speech. Or in your world, does it?
Actually it kinda is.. It is open to the public, free of charge. It is edited by the public, free of charge. The public views it, free of charge, and the public contributes to it, free of charge.. Don't get more public than that.
Actually it does, and that is when they aren't a private company. And to the thread opener. I'd be gladly sign your petition if you let me take a tour of your house and destroy anything I find offensive.
hi friend.. Its not so that we are saying all this coz we are non-muslims.. but simply coz something called common sense/concise is there.. that tells me: removing any pics won`t harm allah in any ways. everything that is happening is the will of allah almighty. but you won`t agree with anyone and anything. anyways.. just know.. Allah hu. means God Is and is Greatest
It's not common property. It is private property. @ NPT - I will reply later. Your post is long and deserves a thorough response.
First it is not public, now its... ... in the context in which you dispute it's public nature, it really is public in nature, private or not.. There is a difference between public and common property. Don't hurt yourself.
As an encyclopedia they have an obligation to document factual truths, Not select what historical facts get told based who it may offend. To equate the display of a historical piece of art in an encyclopedia to racism or hate speech is absurd. Would you support the removal of anything based on someone claiming it offends them? Or is it just the religious who get the special treatment?
Unfortunately he touts the constitution while supporting limited speech, or censored speech.. I'm still trying to come to grips with the anachronism.
I take it "western standards" amounts to telling the truth even when religious fanatics demand you don't. If you want an educational resource that censors it's self based on islamic rules, go make one. Why should what we are able to know be limited to what you say we are allowed to know and what your religion permits to be taught and seen?
I just think that wikipedia is written by people and moderators can't check everything, that's why such sh*t happens from time to time
Please include a link, as these aren't your thoughts, it is inappropriate to merely cut and paste an uncredited excerpt. Your excerpt is false. Firstly, the Muhammed article doesn't include 3-4 images that are considered offensive by folks like yourself, but out of, what, close to 20 images, I think there are 2 images showing your Prophet which you apparently find offensive. Both precede the Ottoman Empire. The first is of your Prophet preaching in Mecca, and the second, the earliest known depiction, depicting the famous Black Stone account. Secondly, it is Islam itself that has generated these pictures over the course of its history, not western powers. Thirdly, when it does indicate western thought, it says so - that the thought comes from the western traditions. Fourthly, the article is a survey, and includes brief introductions to thought east and west: Now, I respectfully request that you reply to the many substantive questions I have put to you, and contained throughout your thread.
For the record, I note that Ala was on this morning, and has been on numerous times since this debate began. Ala, I don't think it serves the conversation when you make statements, and substantive answers are provided; other questions are raised, then you go underground and only raise new accusations. Guerilla, I saw that yesterday was kind of a crazy day here, so I do await your answers to the outstanding questions. Ala, this is your thread. I believe it behooves you to answer forthrightly the questions outstanding. I repeat only the latest:
Huh? Thanks to wikipedia for sharing great informations.. .Whats wrong with the images.... At least they inform us about islam and other stuff....
For the record, I just received a PM from Ala. Via PM reply, I asked him to reply here, rather than in PM. I will say this, as a matter of standing principle: please don't PM an answer to questions put in a public forum. It doesn't suffice - no one benefits. As statements are made publically, questions raised publically, please answer publically.
It is all crazy... The whole world is crazy... I think this religion stuff is private matter of individuals. I felt offended by the illustrations of the Prophet, because i have been taught from the very beginning that "Any depiction of prophet is Haram, illegal". Illegal not b local laws or constitution, but by the laws of God. And while yo can change and adjust to local laws, no one can challenge laws formed by our Prophet, whom we love and respect. Some Shias and Sunnis believe "respectful depictions" of the Prophet are allowed. I agree with them. They have intense love and respect for the Prophet. That is good. My local Imam would consider it heresy and heretic. Because that is how we've been brought up. This is our culture. I don't really care what Wikipedia says. Half of my family members are Sunni orthodox, some of them Shias. I and my closest relatives are Sunni Tablikis. There are Wahabis, Sufis, Shias, Khairatkhans, khojas, Ahle Hadis, Deobandis... God knows how many sects. I cannot speak for all of them. I can only speak for 85% or so Sunnis who feel it is offensive, and thats about 1.5 billion people.