Forum:I'd like to take a moment to talk about freedom of speech and expression.

Forums: Index > Village Dump > I'd like to take a moment to talk about freedom of speech and expression.

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5240 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This whole thing is nothing more than an argument about cocks. Now that IS funny. MrN 22:10, Nov 15

I'd like to, but I know you guys would rather talk about boobies. Boobies are pretty cool. Someday I hope to touch one. -OptyC Sucks! CUN15:54, 14 Nov

I agree wholeheartedly with OptyC. Boobies are pretty cool. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 16:10, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Even when they're warm. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:48, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what a coincidence, I just wrote an UnNews article about the disappearing boobs in Washington DC...eh-hem, or is that off-topic... — H. Peebles - D - HS 21:31, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Back to freedom of speech and expression. What do you have to say, opty? • FreddThe Redd • • • 14:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Opty was about to direct your attention to the image at right, which displays Muhammad eating something that came from a pig, which makes it technically even more offensive. Rebuttal? - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 01:56, Nov 16

The Danish never learned their lesson, so why should we? The lesson is never piss off fundamentalist radical Muslims with ties to terrorist networks. In fact we in the USA never learned that either. Muhammad is something we shouldn't make fun of, least we get Muslim terrorists doing suicide/homicide bombings at our web servers to shut off Uncyclopedia connections. Now we Christians, you can make fun of our Jesus and our God, even Christians, and we don't bomb anything or even vandalize the articles. He just sit back and laugh and then write articles making fun of the people making fun of our beliefs and God, and then it starts off a chain reaction of article writing. Those on the Christian side that get pissed off go to Conservapedia those on the Non-Christian side that get pissed off go to Wikipedia. Me, even if I have a major mood order and anger management issues, I hardly ever get pissed off and laugh with the article instead of at it. Ah well Wikia Nazi enforced image rules will prevent us from really doing something offensive like Muhammad giving oral sex to a penis or something. Make it a pork sausage (saggage, The Bears!) or something else instead, and then see the reaction to that. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 06:05, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

When does it stop being funny and start being hate?

Now that I think we've cooled down, I'd like to ask this question in earnest. I find Socky's image above hilarious, but if this were not Uncyclopedia but a white nationalist site or something, I would find it chilling. At what point does jokingly offensive become serious? I'd really like to know. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 06:03, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Shee-it! This isn't a white nationalist site? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:52, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I have absolutely no problem with people making fun or even insulting Islam or any other religion. The trouble begins when they start insulting religious icons, specially by pictures. • FreddThe Redd • • • 07:33, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

The so called Muhammed joke was just stupid , not funny at all. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate)

Mahm00shA, do you have an objective argument regarding the reason insulting icons is more troublesome than insulting faith? This is an honest question. If the answer is that it is an emotional distinction for you, I can accept that. I'm just wondering, because I personally don't see a difference. Also, if it is emotional, then is Andres Serrano's Pisschrist, for instance, offensive to you, by this sensibility, or does your lack of emotional attachment to the crucifix preclude that offense? I too like boobies. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 07:43, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

It's more about insulting "in pictures", which essentially includes an icon... Pictures are more shocking than written words and are more likely to offend, and that's not just my opinion... And yes, I have an argument. It's my collective experience of people's reaction to both types of insults. • FreddThe Redd • • • 08:34, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like how holocaust jokes are funny, but pictures of dead holocaust victims are too offensive. --Mn-z 18:09, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I had a problem with chocolate Jesus. I mean, if you're going to use the Lord, at least use the good chocolate. Nothing insults Jesus more than cheap, hollow chocolate. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I think I can separate the man from the religion. A chocolate Jesus is funny because it is poking fun at those who profit (no pun intended) from religion and attempt to use it as a method of social/political/ideological manipulation. The same goes for Muhammed when certain religious teachers come up with ridiculous ideas. Or Muhammed was 'misquoted' - in that like Jesus , he didn't actually leave a body of written material in his own hand. Socrates was just the same - sometimes it works for a teacher/religious leader to be able to distance themselves from what their followers may think or believe. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:26, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I think it's funny because if you drew any head with a beard it's not a problem, but add an arrow pointing to so it's labeled "muhammad" and suddenly it's a big deal. But that's just me. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 11:57, Nov 17

Sort of like when I take an image of a random pregnant woman, and add a caption that it's Miranda Cosgrove with a few giant mutant newts living in her uterus, it somehow makes it "sick". --Mn-z 18:12, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Are there any Muslims here? Have any Muslims complained about this image? This is about a drawing of an erect penis. Do we have any other pictures of erect penis on Uncyc? Nothing like the image we are talking about from what I have seen. This appears to me to be people saying "I should be able to have a picture of an erect penis because it's a hate image attacking Muslims". Um, no. It's a picture of an erect penis. We don't normally have those on Uncyc. The bottom line is this... Sannse gets to decide what images Wikia will host and which they will not. That's up to Wikia. If we don't like it, we can start our own server and host the site ourself. Anyone got a server and can host us? I don't think so. Until then we have to put up with what Wikia decide. If Wikia start to censor something which actually matters to the purpose of Uncyc then you will find the Administrators of this site fighting with every ounce of breath they have. Until then... It's a picture of a penis. Yes I voted keep on VFD last time. Don't worry about it. It does not matter. As for those of you who are doing your best to ignore my efforts to provide a comprise image: You are dicks, and need to learn which battles matter, and which do not. MrN 18:55, Nov 17

I, like probably a quarter of the people here, have access to a server that could probably host us, for a nominal fee. How much bandwidth does this place suck up, anyway? How many hits does it get? Bottom line: what's our rent? Given that Wikia is basically paying our rent in exchange for hosting ads, what barrier is there, really, for one of us to do the same? pillow talk 03:56, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

There are also other issues we need to consider. For example: Wikia does a fairly good job of defending us from legal threats, and I don't think we could afford copyright lawyers. Wikia owns the intellectual property rights to the Uncyclopedia name (thanks to Chronarion). And finally, nothing is stopping Wikia from maintaining this site if the community decides to move elsewhere, and I sure Wikia could hand out a dozen or so adminships to maintain a "community" here. --Mn-z 05:42, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I like it here. I do! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:25, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I vote for MrN's comment here for official mohammedsuckingdick-image-argument-closer. We agree that the initial hasty deletion was possibly inappropriate given the ongoing communication about it (this is to say, outside of that, the image's deletion was appropriate and called-for per MrN's explication), and for which removal under said circumstances the remover has apologized, one might argue needlessly. We agree that our freedom of expression is of paramount importance, in fact it is of such importance that we will not put it in jeopardy by fighting battles over things that do not matter to said freedom. Does Uncyc need, as MrN says, the freedom to show pictures of erect penises? I'd vote for that right in a vacuum of issues, but in the real space of issues, I'll compromise that right so that a satirical attack that may offend some is protected. And I'll fight for that with a military might. Thank you for putting it so well MrN. I only add all this to second it, really. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 19:31, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Less eloquently though. ~ 20:12, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I read that as you advocating attacking erect penises. You make me sick. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:30, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you're acting like penises are something new. Have any of you read Godzilla vs. Urethra? This was featured October 2007. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 15:50, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but 2007 was such a more liberated era than now... Anyway, I simply said I'd vote for the right to show erect penises, but I could capitulate it in a negotiation. So I'm all for it. Erect penises yay! Does that make you sick, Modus? It's interesting that the photochops in that feature don't appear in that penis category... -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 17:45, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Penis images are in Category:Pictures with penises, and the images in that article are there. --Mn-z 17:55, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

If you turn this picture upside down, my suit disappears. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:16, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I was thinking about boobies. I like boobies. Let's talk about boobies. Why aren't there more boobies in that category? Why aren't there any boobies in this forum? Where are all the god damn boobies? I like boobies. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 17:58, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

To put this into perspective though, there have been several instances where porn images have been removed for being blatant porn, while other, worse images have been kept. Basically, Wikia does not have the resources to police the site. --Mn-z 18:05, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Agree with MrN that you need to pick your shots and be adaptable (but not because a group threatens misconduct; doing so rewards it and doesn't get it to stop). The sausage image above removes all the aspects that bothered me about the original; rather than a drawing that inherently offends Muslims, and carries the offense to them with an Arabic label, it is a cheap Photoshopping that emphasizes the author's desire to offend. I mentioned Mahm00shA's unsatisfying position (that the original photo"offends my heritage") yesterday on MrN's talk page, and the above, with "collective experience" (the experience of what happened, but not to him?) is just as unsatisfying. So I put it to you: Are you offended? or do you simply claim that you ought to be offended? Spıke ¬  18:23 18-Nov-09 (PS--Cheerfully replied to and I am satisfied.) Spıke ¬  20:53 18-Nov-09

TL;DR

Boobies! --Mn-z 18:32, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Boobies. Y'all better be talking about boobies. -OptyC Sucks! CUN16:12, 17 Nov

Actually, now I'm talking about Cthulhu. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! 16:32, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not here, but I have to say that I actually was annoyed by Piss Christ as it was designed to be offensive with no real artistic merit and was protected under freedom of speech and freedom of expression as it was "Art". Much the same with the Muhammad picture I was annoyed by it because it was an image that was designed to be offensive and the only humour value inherit in it is the fact that it is an offensive picture. What has offended me about this is that there has been a lot of comments relating to us potentially being a terrorist target and that we have every right to do this as they are terrorists and on and on and on. I have lived in a community where there was a significant Islamic presence. They were good people, supporting the community and helping each other. My Islamic neighbours were the first to come over and say hello when I was mowing the lawn or working on my car. I know that they would be offended by this and I see no redeeming value in it. Part of my reason for the partial withdrawal from this site is that I am feeling that at the moment I am supporting this site which is in turn being used as a platform for hate speech, and that makes it very difficult to be here with a clear conscience. And I would also like to see more boobies and more cock, but I don't consider Uncyc the best platform for this. In fact, I typed "boobies" into google and I gave up going through all the pages and still hadn't come across Uncyc. (Okay, I'll admit I did get a little distracted.) Pup

We're not a "platform for hate speech." That's it. Thanks, pup. • FreddThe Redd • • • 20:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

By "a lot" you mean one, right? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 22:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of users predominantly repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Pup at work and not signed in.

Can we assume those couple of users are idiots and don't represent the general opinion of Uncyclopedia? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 04:20, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

I would, but I come from a country where there is a huge amount of racism that is just below the surface, and if you hear one or two people saying something then you can assume safely that at least 20 other people agree but are keeping quiet. Pup

Pup: You are more right than you know. (Or maybe you do know, and you're just, I dunno, awesome.) • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 07:25, Nov 19 2009

So, basically, you come from every country in the world. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 23:40, Nov 20

Wow, that's a whole lotta words with very little mention of boobies. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:06, 18 Nov

Make a game of it. Every time you see the letter e think of boobies, and every time you see the letter i think of cock. Pup

I already do that. An added benefit is that it still doesn't require me to actually read any of that. -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:29, 18 Nov

Wow! Italic boobies! Pup

Speaking of offensive material that pretends to be art

Moar Boobies!

User:Mnbvcxz/Art --Mn-z 05:33, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

You have been busy Mnbvcxz - that is going to cost you a lot in child support. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:57, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

But all the boobies there are covered! and none of the stomachs. That offends me. Spıke ¬  18:29 19-Nov-09

That would be the point. --Mn-z 19:35, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

It would be sexier if the babies were ripping themselves out of the mommies' stomachs with chainsaws with blood and guts spraying everywhere and then proceeding to rape their mothers' bloody corpses with their not-yet-matured penises wait, what? —Paizuri MUN (Talk • Contribs • Poll!)

That's just sick. Now if it where giant mutant womb-dwelling newts ripping through there host body's stomachs with chainsaws with blood and guts spraying everywhere and then proceeding to rape the bloody corpses, that would be hawt. --Mn-z 06:11, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone!

Since when is a picture of an erect penis obscene? I think there's something quite beautiful and tender about the way in which Mohammed is gently licking the head of that man's penis (its certainly much more tender and beautiful than the way Mohammed fucked a nine-year-old girl in real life).

Puppy, if you think publishing a picture of Mohammed is hate speech then you're an idiot. If Muslims find images of their prophet offensive then they shouldn't publish them. I, however, don't think its a sin to do so, and thus am not constrained by that particular taboo. If you find the concept of a man engaging in homosexual love offensive, then you need to check your prejudices.

This image has artistic value beyond the fact that it is offensive to Muslims, insofar as it is a parody of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy. In general, the people opposed to this image need to grow the fuck up and behave like adults. -- sacrificed Ape (ruffle) (Riot Porn) 01:48, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

This makes fun of the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy. The other one does not. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 02:10, Nov 21 2009

The most notorious Jyllands-Posten cartoon (Mohammad with a bomb in his head) I do not regard as controversial at all. It makes the assertion that, whatever Mohammad intended, his work has become a mandate for violence. This is an inherently political question which, in my USA, is to be decided by no one but the individual. In contrast, the penis illustration, while unoffensive to "enlightened" Westerners, I opposed for being gratuitously offensive without any purpose in comedy or commentary. Spıke ¬  PS--At the point at which this long discussion got the most sensible, it seemed we were talking not about fundamental rights but the appeal of our web site. A given user might indeed object to either portrayals of the Prophet or of homosexual love. "Grow the fuck up" would not be the response that serves us best. Spıke ¬  01:58 21-Nov-09

Yes, but do we really want those who object to homosexual love around? Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! 02:15, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Discussions about what one should believe are as inappropriate in the planning on a comedy site as all the words spent in Talk:Global warming about what the truth is. Alternate views exist; the only question is what we are going to do about it. If we offend a (non-paying) customer of any persuasion, was it for a purpose? Spıke ¬  02:21 21-Nov-09

In regards to your comment above ape, I don't believe that the picture of Muhammad is hate speech. It is unfunny and unappealing, insulting, and borderline illegal (depending on your country. I'll get the link on that later for you.) What I consider hate speech is the blind assertion that Muslim = terrorist, and that without one there wouldn't be the other. Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist as well as a despot? That was certainly a significant aspect of the invasion of Iraq, which was a country that was not a theocracy and in fact Saddam actually did everything he was capable of to avoid a church led state. What has been created to a large extent is now a power vacuum in the Middle East where it is likely that a Muslim lead government will come to power. Osama is a terrorist, but he was taught those skills by the CIA for him to use taking afghanistan troops into Russia as a Freedom fighting organisation, which makes a Judeo-Christian nation responsible for breeding terrorist activities. I'm saying that there are some elements here on Uncyclopedia who have an enormous sense of nationalistic pride which has a tendency to lead them to blindly follow propaganda to the extent that they hate a race or a religion based upon a false assumption. In professing those beliefs and trying to force their opinions onto other they are actively speaking in hateful terms - a basic definition of hate speech. Parody is about seeing the inherit stupidity of civilisation and bringing that to light - by basing our humour on propaganda we become less of a voice of reason and humour and more an arm of a propaganda machine. Just the same way that you would argue a right to a free speech, I argue a right for others to practice their religion as they see fit, and to actually speak without fear of reprisal. We both believe and support the same ideal, but we are looking at it fro a different angle. If we give in to hatred and what is effectively name calling, then we live in an environment of fear and terror. And when that happens, the terrorists - regardless of country or creed - win. Boobies. Pup

Puppy, I won't defend Bush, but I'll quibble in detail about that blame-America interpretation of recent history. But not here. Let's talk comedy. It depends on my willingness to step outside my culture, but not to renounce it, and I am not "an arm of a propaganda machine" to have a culture. Agreed that name-calling by itself is not humor, unless done deliberately on the way to a greater purpose. But feeling bound by someone's claim to be offended, as teachers at American public schools are, is likewise a barrier to humor and all other types of thought. And, "Don't do this, or the terrorists win," around here is a formula to be so obsessed with terrorism that the terrorists have won. Boobies! Spıke ¬  03:44 21-Nov-09

Uncyclopedia is a forum for jokes, and unfortunately, some of those jokes can be racist, sexist, and offensive, and therefore unfunny to a certain segment. The question I see here is where to draw the line between humor and hate speech. The event at Fort Hood here in the U.S. has raised a lot of questions, making it more scary than funny the idea that Muslim might equal terrorist, since somebody might actually believe it (versus everyone considering it ridiculous). Similarly, I notice a lot of jokes around here equating Christians with conservatives or with rednecks or fascists. I think the whole idea of calling one's opponents fascists or communists is bad enough, but calling them terrorists crosses the line and opens the gates to a witch hunt. Certain images can be interpreted either as parody or as propaganda - the image described sounds to me dangerously close to propaganda. Just my two cents. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 04:00, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

1th. USA! USA! Go nation! Woo!

2th. Everything offends someone. Satire to one is heresy to another.

3th. It's a wiki. If you don't like it, edit it. The best way to fight bad speech is with better speech. Heck, make a page about it. Air your quibble. Air it! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:04, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

1th Cool. I'm proud of my country as well (sometimes)

2th But we moderate what is allowed on here and not. The initial image got deleted due to the nudity - the fact that it was a penis may have something to do with it. The fact that it was homosexual in nature may have something else to do with it. By that token should we do something about this image as it shows naked breasts?

3th I did. I partially censored the image and replace the copies of the images on the user pages and the main space page with the censored one. I got advised that if I didn't fix that it would be a ban. I fixed it and then voted on a VFD. It was then replaced by an image hosted externally which apparently was okay because it was "not hosted on our servers." So you now have no issue with me going back and changing any user pages or talk pages that are displaying an image that I find offensive?

4st I'm deliberately going over the top with some of what I said before. I apologise for the US bashing - I'm simply showing a different perspective. I am not supporting the actions of Osama or Saddam in any way, shape or form. The world is a better placed with the almost neutering of the first and the disposal of the second. Pup

And as to the link I promised - there's this about legality and this about free speech. The whole page is as balanced as I could find as an approach to this. It might also be of interest that this is hosted on Wiki servers, and actually has a copy of the Jylland-Posten image on the page. Pup

So do we. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:54, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

The servers are in the USA, so that isn't a legal issue. --Mn-z 06:37, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough

I have said before that the issue of the image being hosted here is something that I am happy to drop, and I will. I apologise for continuing to drag this out even further. As I've said a number of times before, my major concern is that this does not in any way jeopardise Uncyclopedia, and to be honest the image itself is less harmful to Uncyclopedia than the arguing about it is. I guess I've presented my objection to this as openly and honestly as I can, and I'm not asking that it be removed, or no longer displayed. And I am forced by conscience to admit, I have done more than my fair share of criticising Christians/Catholics, even including creating a photoshopped image of the Pope being fellated, and attacking the core beliefs of a religion, including the denigration of Jesus. I have added an image of comic nudity (even if it is stick figures). I am not on a moral high ground on this at all. And in case the change of sig has not been a strong enough indicator, I am back on board, and will continue to do what I came here to do - write jokes about cocks and boobies. Pup

I take it you didn't get the job. :( • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} Saturday, 08:33, Nov 21 2009

Actually I did. I'm doing a job that is so far below my experience it's not funny, but I'm working within walking distance of home and enjoying the work I'm doing and the people I'm with. More money would be nice, but having been there, I prefer to not be stressed. Pup

All Muslims are cock sucking terrorists.

When they're not sucking cock or fucking children, they're blowing up buildings full of innocent people in the name of their ass backwards religion. I swear, they're all so fucking stupid it's a miracle they don't forget to breathe. I've also never met a Muslim that didn't smell like three week old shit. This world would be so much better off if we rounded them all up and sunk them to the bottom of the ocean. It's okay for me to say this because I didn't show a drawing of a penis. -OptyC Sucks! CUN14:31, 21 Nov

You've crossed the line. And if you are not banned, I'll be leaving forever. • FreddThe Redd • • • 15:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Um. He didn't mean that? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:57, 21 November 2009

What Socky said. If he meant it, his spelling and grammar would've been terrible, while some words would be unnecessarily capitalized and others entirely capitalized. This is because racists tend to be stupid. Besides, the only people OptyC hates are himself, which itself looks like poor grammar until you realize that he's got a bunch of personalities. All of them are twats. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:48, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Twats one and all. First true thing in this thread. -OptyC Sucks! CUN18:50, 21 Nov

Whether you meant it or not, you have to admit, that was a little unnecessary. Che } 18:56,21November,2009

This drama is now officially over

I have had enough of this. I'm going to start throwing bans all over the place. This is a humor wiki, not the last stand of the free world, however you define. Stop fucking about the lot of you and go write a fucking article. ~ 19:20, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay if I just stand over there and scratch? I've got a terrible rash. I assume it's from all the scratching. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)