ahahaha dang thiz harzhnezz 
hahahaha rezpec 
Respect da Fazil Say!
Fuck all this bullshit. ‘Charges of offending Muslims and insulting Islam’ ? Fucking grow a ballsack and get over it. People insult everyone all the time. Fuck off.
1 Like
+eleventy billion
man I thought da turks were supposed to be secular?
all the turks i’ve ever known have been hard core muslim. this sort of thing doesn’t surprise me at all.
If someone say some things that are supposed to ‘hurt’ your god, he probably isn’t as mighty as you think he is.
I like how it says he received death threats. If your god is worth killing for, why don’t you start with yourself 
some mofo’s review of da taken 2
Turkey is a secular, democratic and modern country. You can see the people with very modern looking all over the city, not ninjas! The people of Turkey do not wear such a pitch black clothes like the people living in an Islamic country. Not only the appearance, but also the thoughts are modern and contemporary in Turkey! Why did director say a big lie to the world? Is there a political reason? Should a director act like a horrible politician?
A classic for your enjoyment:
HITCH deserves honorary SDC emotisheeyat.
I didn’t bother to watch the video, but why do you need someone like Hitchens to make a good free-speech argument? I am tired of all these free-speech discusssions. It is so god damn easy to make the argument for free speech. People like John Stuart Mill made the case over a hundrer years ago. Nearer to our time you can read Bertrand Russel or Noam Chomsky saing the same thing.
The Turkish state is secular. All of the people in Turkey on the other hand aren’t identical. Some are secular while some are religious.
If you are asking how a secular state can have laws against “offending” religious feelings or something like that, well than you can look no further than to Europe. The idea of freedom of speech has never really been understood anywhere exept in USA. Multiple secular European countries - inclouding Norway and Sweden - have laws against offending religions or religious feelings.
I see, I wonder if they enforce this law so vehemently when other religions are involved?
I couldn’t fathom someone getting charged for such an innocuous statement in my country.
Insult a bogan’s footy team and see where that gets you…
You don’t need Hitchens to make a good one. But he’s entertaining.
Why do we still have discussions about free speech? Well, to paraphrase JS Mill: ‘on great topics there is always something to be said’. So there.
And man, I gotta say. To put Noam Chomsky in the same sentence as JS Mill and Bertie Russell suggests that you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.
Yeah, and that’s retarded. People should be able to ‘offend’ any religion they want.
We’re talking about charges brought by the state not whether people are easily offended.
Oh, you’re such a dickhead. I mean it is well known that I can’t stand you, but you keep surprising me about how big a douche you actually are.
Anywho; of course being the dickhead you are I know that you don’t like Chomsky. It is pointless for us to discuss wether or not Chomsky can be compare to Bertrand Russel or not because we would never agree on that. Regardless of what you think of Chomsky he has written specifically on the topic of free speech. For instance this one:
chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm
I am sure you haven’t read it. Also I am sure that Hitchens - being a fan of ca. pre 9/11 Chomsky strongly would reccomend this article for you to read.
Also with regards to Bertrand Russel I am shocked that you actually like the guy. Same with Hitchens actually. Both of them were very strong in their criticism of your favorite little state.
Yeh, I just meant a pointless ott reaction.
+1
I don’t even think he believes half the shit he spews. And sometimes he doesn’t seem to have a fucking clue what he’s talking about, but he gets off so hard telling people they’re wrong in an inflammatory way. I presume he just looks up the topic on wikipedia and steals opposing arguments from there. Then he adds a subtext of “I’m right, you’re wrong, and you’re also a piece of shit for thinking the way you do.”
My bullshit detector is off da hook, yo.
Your response to my initial post was less an argument so much as a content-free provocation. You didnt watch the video I posted. The reason you gave was that the argument for free speech has been given by people including Mill, Russell, and Chomsky. So effectively, your post was: “i am offering no substantive reasons for why the opinions in that video are uninteresting, so im just going to assert they are because these other people have talked about this topic too”. I am offended by the tone of this argument and also by the laziness of it. But if I’m missing some content in your post, I invite you to clarify the record.
And yeah, of course I’ll admit my response after your stupid and inflammatory response was also stupid and inflammatory . I just assumed that you werent interested in having a serious argument based on the unseriousness of your response.
Wow, such sensitive souls here.