Is it OK or not?
#22
yes, but he has done some rather un-even handed stuff in the past
Its like calling him out for it before he goes and does it. I bet he has his mouse pointer hoveirng over the delete key whenever he reads something he doesntlike,.
#23
Is it a good thing to attempt to moderate a politics forum at all?
Many would say its a wasted effort. There is no or very little respect for any political party, religion or ethnic group there, or so it would seem - they hardly respect each other.
#24
You're quoting Natan Sharansky, so we are clear where you stand.
Title: On hating the Jews.
Author: Natan Sharansky
Date: November 1, 2003
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
NO HATRED has as rich and as lethal a history as anti-Semitism--"the longest hatred," as the historian Robert Wistrich has dubbed it. Over the millennia, anti-Semitism has infected a multitude of peoples, religions, and civilizations, in the process inflicting a host of terrors on its Jewish victims."
Author: Natan Sharansky
Date: November 1, 2003
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
NO HATRED has as rich and as lethal a history as anti-Semitism--"the longest hatred," as the historian Robert Wistrich has dubbed it. Over the millennia, anti-Semitism has infected a multitude of peoples, religions, and civilizations, in the process inflicting a host of terrors on its Jewish victims."
#26
Re: Really?
Israel is six miles wide in a sea that is endless. At least it is still there. In the past, often there was no place, no sanctuary, no safe haven. History repeats. When you are down to the 10 yard line, or the six mile marker, each step is quite precious.
#28
So let's analyze.
In the context of discussing recent newsworthy events, are cartoons of Mohammad....
<i>1. knowingly false</i>
Nope.
<i>2. defamatory</i>
Nope.
<i>3. inaccurate</i>
Nope.
<i>4. abusive</i>
Nope.
<i>5. vulgar</i>
Nope.
<i>6. hateful</i>
Nope.
<i>7. harassing</i>
Nope.
<i>8. obscene</i>
Nope.
<i>9. profane</i>
Nope.
<i>10. sexually oriented</i>
Nope.
<i>11. threatening</i>
Nope.
<i>12. invasive of a person's privacy</i>
Nope.
<i>13. violative of any law.</i>
Nope.
Seems perfectly clear to me. What is your analysis?
<i>1. knowingly false</i>
Nope.
<i>2. defamatory</i>
Nope.
<i>3. inaccurate</i>
Nope.
<i>4. abusive</i>
Nope.
<i>5. vulgar</i>
Nope.
<i>6. hateful</i>
Nope.
<i>7. harassing</i>
Nope.
<i>8. obscene</i>
Nope.
<i>9. profane</i>
Nope.
<i>10. sexually oriented</i>
Nope.
<i>11. threatening</i>
Nope.
<i>12. invasive of a person's privacy</i>
Nope.
<i>13. violative of any law.</i>
Nope.
Seems perfectly clear to me. What is your analysis?
#29
Technically....
no its not. Just because its against the muslim religion to depict Muhammad in either good or bad images doesnt mean its against everyone elses constitutional right to the freedom of speech. Its sad that the muslim faith has been given such a black veil since it is exploited by few for fanatic reasons. The koran teaches very civil and kind words that have been twisted by a small section of society. I think the bigger thing is, here in the US if somone did this they would protest or write to the editor, not burn the embassy down of the country that it originated from and call for the entire country to be executed. For this I feel freedom of speech must be upheld and those who break the law punished. Audiworld must take a stand and to deny this as many have said will require denying many other things. Are you willing to kill your popularity over this?