We haven't received enough votes with gender data to show this graph yet.
We will show the graph as soon as we have enough votes!
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
It appears as though the Canadian Islamic Congress are trying to label these articles as a promotion of hate as opposed to freedom of expression. It will be interesting to see the outcome. MacLean's Magazine would like to see the copmplaints go to the Supreme Court of Canada and be shot down.
[3 points]4 years ago by HauliReplyEdited 4 years ago by Hauli
Then it is time to repeal the laws against hate speech. Words are words. Stick and stones. I had a bad feeling when they tried to label hate speech as undeserving of the protections of free speech in the first place.
I just watched a 2 hour special about Jimmy Carter and his book on Palestine. The right-wing/conservative/unconditionally pro-Israel critics (who, according to the film maker, were also the most extreme in their speech) pretty much refused to sign consents for the film.
[2 points]4 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 4 years ago by dauguy
Islam is deeply important to a Muslim and to attack Islam is an outrage, like attacking a man's mother. One has to defend Islam or they are not worthy of God's blessings but deserve his wrath. There is no reason to speak against religion and cause the discomfort to the listener. Smoking is banned in public places and so should words that are noxious to others.
How did I do? (That was harder than I thought.)
[1 point]4 years ago by stoplookingatmeReplyEdited 4 years ago by stoplookingatme
I think you did well, but that point of view claims extra privileges for that group that they will not grant to others. All points of view must be allowed, as long as they are expressed only with words.
United States
Outlaw free speech? I think not!
Questions pulled from reports like these:
http://www.iheu.org/node/3123
http://jp.dk/uknews/article1359470.ece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean%27s_Magazine
It appears as though the Canadian Islamic Congress are trying to label these articles as a promotion of hate as opposed to freedom of expression. It will be interesting to see the outcome. MacLean's Magazine would like to see the copmplaints go to the Supreme Court of Canada and be shot down.
Then it is time to repeal the laws against hate speech. Words are words. Stick and stones. I had a bad feeling when they tried to label hate speech as undeserving of the protections of free speech in the first place.
Oh boy. We're in trouble now.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[2 points] 4 years ago by deleted user ReplyI wish some of the people who responded yes would explain their decision.
Interesting.
I just watched a 2 hour special about Jimmy Carter and his book on Palestine. The right-wing/conservative/unconditionally pro-Israel critics (who, according to the film maker, were also the most extreme in their speech) pretty much refused to sign consents for the film.
I can play "devil's advocate".
Islam is deeply important to a Muslim and to attack Islam is an outrage, like attacking a man's mother. One has to defend Islam or they are not worthy of God's blessings but deserve his wrath. There is no reason to speak against religion and cause the discomfort to the listener. Smoking is banned in public places and so should words that are noxious to others.
How did I do? (That was harder than I thought.)
I think you did well, but that point of view claims extra privileges for that group that they will not grant to others. All points of view must be allowed, as long as they are expressed only with words.