Skip to main content

Abusive speech x Islam

Doing my research on the second part of the chapter, I came across an article written by Daniel Burke, a Religion editor at CNN. Back in July the KPFA station cancelled Richard Dawkins speech at their event due to his Islamiphobic rhetoric in a series of tweets. KPFA saw it as abusive language/speech, because the type of rhetoric he used atop the current political climate putting muslims in a vulnerable state could and would incite violence. And in truth I one hundered percent agree with KPFA; an individual who slightly believes what Dawkins rhetoric is implying, may end up using it as a justification for any wrong doings committed against Muslims. According to Tedford and Herbeck, one of the qualifiers for abusive speech is that the language used is offensive to the party it is directed towards. KPFA has every right to protect their Muslim followers so to not offend them, when they simply tune into the station to enjoy their free time. Towards the end of the article, Dawkins, who is a prominent atheist author, rebutted KPFA on why they did not stop him on his anti-christian rhetoric. My response to this would somewhat be biased being a Muslim myself. Although no religion is a sacred thing and to each his own, I couldn’t help but think that Islam and Muslims are under more persecution whereas Christians and Christianity are not. With the political discourse currently going on, KPFA was right  not to take part in furthering such speech. But I digress! Dawkins took part in what is known as “abusive language” in its formal definition. His  anti-Islam message could be taken the wrong way and has the potential to incite violence in an already tense society. Offending the Muslim audience of KPFA was explicit.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/living/radio-station-dawkins/index.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more