I was the “one guy” in the crowd who shouted “hear, hear!!” at the moment he thought he was losing the crowd. Chatted to Bill backstage afterwards and he was as indignant at the faux liberals in the green room as he was on stage. Also talked to Ms. Bigelow about the Chinese ivory trade (she was there to promote a documentary on endangered elephant species). Great night!
You can tell where the American cultural consciousness lies on this issue when a *Bill Maher* audience is largely silent when making points on the importance of free speech.
David Farner uhhhh...YES. i just watched that clip and when he stated how Islamophobia doesnt kill people the ak47s and planes into buildings do.........and the entire crowd was silent i was shocked. Wait a minute now........ wtf happened to liberalism or loving freedom?? So lemme get this straight. Every guest up there could say "catholics are a screwed up old stinky religion stuck in the dark ages, based on some dirty desert wizard that never truly existed and because of their practice of.not letting priests marry have an issue of pedopholia" I DARE YOU to honestly say that Audience would react with that same silence after my quote on Catholicism. There would at least be a few people clapping. But make a comment on THE TERRORIST ELEMENT WITHIN ISLAM.............and the crowd....who are SUPPOSED to be objective people who fight for human and civil rights...... ..are silent........ what the fuck happened to liberals. When did it become a cult mentality
I wish more people understood that freedom of speech is to protect speech that is disliked; speech that is abhorrent and infuriating. Popular speech, by definition, doesn't need protection.
Political Correctness is a shaming tactic to suppress the open and obvious truth. It IS censorship, it is denial, evil & destructive. It's America's NEWEST intolerance.
Because it's a rigid system of uptight, rigid rules that kills honesty, joy, dissent and truth. It's intent is to control, deceive and manipulate in the name of fairness. Sounds like censorship to me. What are YOUR reasons for being politically correct? To fit in and conform? Acceptance from your peers? It's what all the hipsters are doing? Political Correctness= McCarthyism for soft, pussified, uptight millennials.
Political correctness has been taken from being a good idea, from "lets not be mean particularly to people who are not able to look after themselves very well", to the point where any kind of criticism of any kind of individual or group can be labelled cruel, insensitive, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, anti-whatever. If you start to think "ooh, we mustn’t criticise or offend them", humour is gone, with humour goes a sense of proportion, and then as far as I’m concerned we’re living in a 1984 Orwellian nightmare. Maturity also means taking responsibility for ones feelings and reactions. When I hear people say "I'm offended" more often than not, it's a form of sanctified bullying. What they're really saying is "how dare you disagree with me. And since you do disagree with me, I'm going to coerce you and shame you, and call you all sorts of nasty things until you do. In this case, open dialogue, honesty, truth and humour are dead.
My personal favorite "argument" that actually seems to have a lot of traction in academic and political circles is that we need to ban "hate speech" in order to protect "free speech". Also the idea that never having your religion challenged or satirized is somehow, magically "a basic human right".
This is nonsense. Because you're unable to tolerate any criticism of your religion does not make ME intolerant. I'm not about to arrest you or behead you for practicing Islam of your own free accord. Me having a problem with muslims using violence to stop criticism IS NOT intolerant. Having serious problems with aspects of any given religion (a big one being their assumed protection from any and all criticism in the first place) does not make me intolerant. Free and open criticism is not intolerant. If your "faith" says it's ok to arrest or harm people for simply pointing at *potential* faults in your belief system, then you prove it to be the violent unthinking reactionary craziness you're claiming it isn't. And THAT's what intolerance is. Violence against dissent.
Bill is not becoming more conservative; he's a classical liberal when it comes to personal freedom. As in, he wants more of it. Banning so-called hate speech is detrimental so personal freedom. So is banning a 32 oz soda, for that matter.
@Dan Ross Bill fucking hates conservatives, and it's awfully sickening to hear conservatives talking about free speech, they don't give a flying fuck about free speech, unless it's convenient for them, they are the ones who censored Bill by getting Politically Incorrect cancelled. They are the ones who are politically correct by pushing their implemented patriotism, as they lose their minds if someone disrespect the flag or the good old values, and they praise Bill for spiting Islam, but they go crazy when he attacks Christianity. They got his movie censored in most US theaters ten years ago. Conservatives hate free speech, and they are ironically more politically correct than they think.
@Dan Ross No some leftists are simply adopting the tactics and attitudes that I have seen on the right for decades. There are not too many points on which I do not generally agree with the goals of the self-styled "SJWs", but I can't stand most of them. Dogmatic, evidence ignoring (or twisting) wind bags so convinced of their righteousness that they can't tolerate other opinions - just like conservatives have tended to be for all of my 57 year life. It's not that the are farther to the left (well some are) but that they are acting like conservatives.
Because he's an ACTUAL LIBERAL. People have ruined the liberal meaning nowadays. SOME (not all) have become so far left that they are worse than republicans.
Joseph McDermott Uhmm Nazi Germany wasn't far-left and Mussolini USED TO BE a socialist, but when he got his power, his fascist troops beat up any lefty they could find
***** Yeah right Joseph McDermott You can't generalize that, that's what western propaganda says. And Pol Pot barely has anything to do with left-wing politics, just like Stalin. Neither of em are good examples for the casual leftist. And there's not only communism btw
Bill, I admire you but you are showing double standards regarding France march here. You criticize Pope but not Obama. He's equally guilty of not showing up there.
are you that much of an Obama hater that you cant put anything in context- the pope said people shouldn't criticize religion- Obama stated the opposite "free speech is essential to western democracy"- yet you concentrate on another issue entirely
Connor O'Brien ironically he did exactly what poster freelyexpressed complained about- he actually did take a dig at Obama for missing the march earlier in tonites segment -
freelyexpressed hey dumbass- maher slayed Obama for not showing up earlier in this same episode so you spoke before getting all the facts like a typical anti Obama goon- however the secret service said it would have been dangerous for Obama to go- by the way I didn't vote for Obama I voted for gary Johnson as a 3rd party alternative
@@almostafa4725 Yet you're watching Bill Maher. The prophet PBUH had a neighboring family that used to put obstacles in front of his home and on his way, but he never cared for it, and when it stopped, he asked what happened to that family, and was told that the father had died. I'm really struggling to see where in the Qur'an or Hadith does it say behead those who oppose Allah or don't agree with Islam ?
Beautiful ideas, but in order to live in a community - whatever the community - you need rules. Maybe only very few rules, as George Carlin once pointed out, but you need some. In France, free speech has never been debated (our current political regime dates from 1958, it's not that old), so it's just in our minds that we have free speech, that's one of the reasons that attack on Charlie Hebdo hurt us so much. Free speech in France does have three limitations, though, as stated by the Law: -defamation or libel -insult -invasion of privacy. That's all, everything else is fair game. The comedian Bill Maher is referring to is Dieudonné, who's more of a public anti-Semite than a comedian. He was arrested for _being an apologist of crime_, _incitement to hatred_ and _incitement to violence_, it has nothing to do with free speech or his 'opinions'.
Many things; in essence, his 'comedic shows' are nothing more than anti-Semitic rallies, and he has been arrested (sometimes comdemned, somtimes discharged) many times because of the content of his speeches. He posted on his Facebook page that he felt closer to Amedy Coulibaly (another terrorist who coordinated his attacks with that of the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo shooting) than the victims, which I think is what warranted the arrest. If that is a piece of information that has not widely made it to other countries: to be concise, Amedy Coulibaly was being pursued by the police for many kilometres. He eventually entered a kosher butcher's shop and held ten people hostages inside. He killed five before being shot by the police. So yeah, Jews being killed = Dieudonné condones the act. No wonder the French Ministry of Justice is going after him.
***** Err, no? The attacks on Dieudonné are more than well-founded. He's a hatemonger who has infringed upon the law on many occasions, how is that racist? He has never been called out for being black, you're making shit up. Dieudonné comparing himself to Charlie is adding insult to injury: Charlie promotes love, peace and intelligence, Dieudonné promotes hatred, violence and stupidity. There's a reason he is not treated like Charlie. Also, please explain how preventing people from denying the existence of concentration camps during WWII is creating a false history. It's actually making sure a false history is NOT created. Racist remarks in France are not illegal unless they are meant as an insult, in which case the problem is the insulting part, not the racist remark part. Sounds to me like you know nothing about French Law and are just blindly repeating what you've heard elsewhere. Know the facts before you speak again; if there's anything we do not need in such a situation it's people talking out of their arses and spreading lies.
keffypoo Some translated quotes of what he said would have been nice. The choice America has made, for what it is worth, is that free speech includes "incitement to hatred" no matter how distasteful it is, but not "incitement to violence". I support this. As an example consider that I hate the KKK and if I spoke about the KKK would be guilty of incitement to hatred. Still I would never call for a KKK member to be assassinated. That would be an incitement to violence. Can provide any quotes of him inciting to violence?
Not at the moment. Has a Google search not yielded anything? I remember following the story concerning his previous arrest and ban from several French cities. The public action against him cited him condoning violence that had been done to Jews in the past, including WWII, of course, but also the bombing of synagogues and the Toulouse shootings in which *children* were killed (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings).
Applying commercial pressure (like boycotting Rush Limbaugh sponsors) seems like an expression of speech, and different from legal pressure. It's temping to ban hate speech like Holocaust denial, though there's a problem in defining hate speech (like when any criticism of religion is taken as religious bigotry)
Yeah, but the ultimate goal of that commercial pressure is not to make speech of their own, not to _add_ anything to the debate, but to make someone else's speech go away, to censor. In other words, they're doing exactly what a law against free speech would do. Not good.
I like Bill, but he was wrong about Rush Limbaugh. Nothing in the first amendment says that private sponsors have to keep supporting Rush's radio show if he's bad for their business.
+AirsoftTim92 thats not the point, he doesnt mean its against freedom of speech as in its illegal, he means it goes against the liberal principal of being able to share your opinion without bullshit censorship, so what they did isnt against freedom of speech, but its defeating the purpose of it
He didn't suggest that the add was illegal, and in that respect against free speech. He effectively said that setting up an org in order to pressure sponsors to stop funding defeats the purpose of free speech, although it may be legel. It is one thing to critique a voice and thereby hoping to silence the bad ideas expressed. It is quite another thing to put social pressure onto someone aiming to instill fear to use their voice or be associated with it. The self censoring that is associated with PC is legal, but it still undermines free speech. Freedom of speech is only partially about law, formal issues. It is also about substantial issues like being reasonably capable of supporting oneself and voicing ones concern.
It's no secret that Islamists are fanatical and psychotic. If they tell you that they will kill you for making a cartoon about Mohammed. You should probably believe them. Don't get me wrong, I completely support Charlie Hebdo's right to fuck with them and piss them off, but when they come and kill them, of course I'm going to put some of the blame on the victim. Why should I not? Think about a small kid. You tell them, "Stop teasing the dog, it's going to bite you" What do you say to the kid when it happens? "See, I told you"
Rilian Sharp You are correct - to an extent. Hopefully, the internet will make you 100% correct. But in the world as it is today, radio and TV are still massive sources of influence. And since it requires a lot of money to get noticed there, trying to stop funding is little different from censorship.
Rilian Sharp There is a bit of a fine distinction that I failed to make clear. I have no problem with a person not buying products from some company funding speech they don't like, but it often goes much further than that. Demands for people to be taken off air, or to be fired or forced to apologize, I think is going too far. But they can stop listening to the show if they were a listener. But as I said on a similar Maher video, when he was calling such actions a violation of free speech rights, that is not true. I said that he was guaranteed free speech, but not a prime time HBO podium to speak from. So my previous comment was more an opinion of proper behavior simply out of prudence - to make speech as free as possible.
I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I also agree with this video and what Bill has to say. FREE SPEECH is for everyone as long as you don't yell fire in a crowded building. Everyone should be made fun of, not just this group or that group but everyone. I am also a Christian and I am not offended in any way about his views on religion because he has as much right to speak his mind, as I do. No violence to get my point across, just clear level headed comments, and a ability to discuss with those who oppose your views to try and find a common ground. Far too many people want things their way or the highway. FREE SPEECH IS DEAD!!
claim of Offense cannot be ground to limit free speech , it's too subjective: what is offensive varies from individuals to individuals, from groups to groups and the surrounding context. People who claim offense often respond with their own share of offense. Being offended is an emotional reaction which one can control. In other words, if you insult me, I can choose to be hurt or not depending on my emotional maturity, whereas if you punch me in the face, it will hurt whether I want it or not. I'm offended by what I found in the Koran about infidels (hate-speech at its crudest), but I'll not demand that the book be banned unless I want them to be able to ban say Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verse je Voltaire's Treatises on Tolerance. You are a believer, believe whatever you will, just do not insist that I believe the same things too under threat of censorship or violence as you wouldn't want anyone to do the same to you.
Boycotting Limbaugh isn't an infringement of free speech because they were not making it illegal for him to give his opinions...they simply didn't like his show and didn't want people to watch it. I feel the same way about The Big Bang Theory, doesn't mean I want it to be illegal for Jim Parsons to make a TV show
EH CBunny Because that's freedom of speech. Sure its a dick movie maybe to be that way in some cases, but you also have the freedom to insult them back. Though as a society we should be educated to move past juvenile criticism to focus on the benefits of society, but our freedom of speech should always be held dear. I feel though if something is getting parody, its probably called for.
Liberals and conservatives lean towards the culturally elite who are the root cause of the mess the country, denying equal rights, rule of law and due process protocol.
I'm not the biggest fan of Bill Maher, typically, I agree with about 50% of his stuff. But on matters like this, he often hits the nail square on the head. Here he has said exactly what needed to be said. Two thumbs up from me.
New Rule: Muslims aren't allowed to get pissed off over a drawing of the Prophet and still take money from countries that are persecuting Muslim minorities. Take my country Bangladesh for example; a few years ago a few atheist bloggers were brutally murdered for criticising Islam in a blog that only 4 people, who really have no lives of their own, read. While at the same time Bangladesh is happily accepting money from China while they build Uighur camps. My people will praise Saudia Arabia as the proper 1st world developed country that upholds Islamic values, while being on the forefront of development, but conveniently ignore what they're doing to Yemen, women, LGBT+, and journalists. Muslims affectionately refer to each other as "brothers and sisters", but C'mon business is booming, let the powerful people have a little Geneva Convention violation party. If the Prophet was alive today, which one do you think he would be more bothered by: the caricature on page N of a French newspaper that, let's be honest; you've never read, or the glaring human rights attrocities that you genuinely know about but turn a blind eye to because $$$$$? Because you know in Islamic beliefs that makes you something called a "munafiq", which means hypocrite. And according to Islamic beliefs, that means you've saved yourself a spot on the lowest pit of hell. Fun fact: in the lowest pit of hell 72 fuck boi doms have their way with you, and they don't use any lube.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me. We have to allow everyone to speak...
I love every time he makes a good point and his audience is nearly all silent. Then someone claps and he says, "Thanks, one guy!" Half the time though, his message strikes such a serious chord and the sheer clarity with which it is delivered is what makes people silent.
Well I don't agree that hate speech should be included in free speech. Some of your examples are a bit off. But the broad point about the excesses of political correctness and cancel culture is good.
Free speech in the United States refers to the right to express one’s self without fear of persecution by the state. It doesn’t protect you from someone’s rebuttal though. They are also entitled to free speech. These things seem to get forgotten often nowadays!
The Catholic response, at its worst, is to threaten to punch you in the nose. The Muslim response, at its worse, is.... well..... Conservatism doesn't put up with this crap. Just saying.
The following are a set of "aya", or verses (basically a sentence or two), within the koran which all state similar messages, that a Muslim cannot and should not state dominion over a non-believer or a wrong doer, and shouldn't punish them for their actions, your sole duty being to just notify them, once. The main point that you'll see is that god is, well, an omnipotent and omniscient being, so he doesn't need you to do that for him. The koran isn't perfect- you'll see it describe some frankly horrendous acts that will be committed against wrongdoers when they go to hell, according the book, but they still clearly state that you cannot punish them. Let me begin: Surat Al-Kāfirūn (The Disbelievers) - The entire sura Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) - 2:256 Surat Al-Kahf (The Cave) - 18:29 Surat Al-'An`ām (The Cattle) - 6:104 Surat Al-'Isrā' (The Night Journey) - 17:7 Surat 'Āli `Imrān (Family of Imran) - 3:20 Surat At-Taghābun (The Mutual Disillusion) - 64:12 Surat An-Nūr (The Light) - 24:54 Surat Yūnus (Jonah) - 10:108 and 10:99 Surat Al-Mā'idah (The Table Spread) 5:48 Surat An-Naĥl (The Bee) 16:125 I'm not expecting you to read all of them, that would be insane, but here they are if you need to refer to it. It's just that it clearly shows, multiple times in fact, that the faith is for equal rights. It's just that there are people who are interpreting it violently and radically, and ignoring these verses saying NOT to punish non-believers. That doesn't mean the entire religion is to blame- religion is personal and depends on how an individual decides to interpret it.
Gosh we’d have to say that about every religion now wouldn’t we? But that’s the cynical view of the world. Instead we judge the merits of people individually and not on the whole. At least we’re supposed to.
I believe they just love the religion of peace. I mean, what’s not to love? You have bombings, beheadings, suppression of free speech. It is the desired world. We already live in it here in Europe 😂
As a European, I absolutely support jail time for denying holocaust. The laws are actually intricate and carefully used. And, as Karl Popper theorized, unlimited freedom enables the enemies of freedom to destroy it. It's not as simple as "freedom is always good and shouldn't be restricted". American free speech concept is perverted and it results in a less free society than is in EU.
1:40 I disagree . The guys in Charlie Hebdo understood full well what could happen. They just chose not to be cowards who let religious fanatics dictate what they can say and what not. Unlike most of the media in the UK or America who will not even publish the new frontage of Charlie Hebdo, cowering in fear to defend the freedom that is basic to their job.
this is such an obvious truth that I can't believe anyone would debate it. I wonder if in the future, when mind reading technology becomes common, people will have to defend freedom of thought? I wouldn't be surprised at attempted legislation to make thinking certain things illegal. Shit, I'm still amazed daily how little freedom we have in the U.S. over our own lives. Police should exist solely to combat predators in my opinion. Murderers, thieves, sexual predators should be their main(95%) focus. Instead, police are a self-serving institution that focuses on seizures and breeds corrupt, power drunk cops that focus on drugs cause that's where the undocumented, easily confiscated cash is. I've had cops threaten to confiscate my rent money if I couldn't provide a reciept proving where it came from. It's not a waste of time for them, they are raking in the dough and arresting everybody. Drug possession cannot be compared to even simple battery, yet with the exception of less than a half-ounce of marijuana, which is a misdemeanor, possession is always a felony. So hitting someone with your fists is not as serious a crime as simply consuming an "illegal" drug. Meanwhile, over half the country are prescribed some kind of psychoactive drug about which long-term effects are completely unknown. Sadly, we could be missing out on more effective therapies because of a lack of research. We are just starting to catch up with marijuana, which is turning out to have a staggering amount of diverse health benefits when used therapeutically. psychedelics could be an awesome therapeutic tool for myriad different psychiatric issues; PTSD, depression, ect. but the whole psychiatry biz is also about profit, and rarely do people suffering from these get cured, or even effective treatment. A doctor that truly listens to the patients is also rare. offering alternative therapies is rare too, and usually have to be inquired about. Depression? put them on an extremely physically addictive drug (SSRI's can have a longer or worse withdrawl than opiates) like zoloft or something, and don't even bother to mention that. wow sorry I'm ranting!
Nobody hates stinging satire! They just don't like it when it is aimed at them. Instead of being known as Homo Sapiens (meaning "wise man") we should be called Homo Hypocritus.
Come on Bill! It’s fine you’re not a believer. As a matter of fact your rant on it has many logical points. But leave those that do believe alone. Their not all extremists.
To those saying, _"Yes, but how do we _*_solve_*_ the Islamic Jihad threat?"_, here's one of many solutions.... *Solution 1:* Let's eradicate the idea that faith(_belief despite sufficient evidence_) is a good thing. Believing false ideas *_always_* leads to worse outcomes for humanity than believing only what you *_can and do_* know. _Why does reality exist?_ *No one knows.* We need less arrogance/faith and more *_honesty_*(satire is important). That would solve a good majority of humanity's *_many_* problems.
Bill Maher is appallingly ignorant when it comes to religion. It's really the weakest point of any routine he does, because it's so easy for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the subject (which, granted, excludes most atheists >badump-ching
I agree with Bill about free speech, but how is boycotting not also freedom of expression? I don't believe anyone is saying Rush should be imprisoned, just that they hate him so much that, that hate spreads to his supporters. And if you hate someone, why would you buy their products?
Everyone is the sought of his own sake. In my opinion, free speach is not to use for bastardize others, unless 'you are just a baby'. Make strike a cord will always have a pushback.
Wow. I usually like Maher, but this was just fucking painful. Sorry, but I don't think you understand "free speech". No one is asking Congress to make Rush shut up, they are instead using their constitutionally protected Free Speech to talk to Rush's advertisers. It is the heart and soul of what "Free Speech" is. If you, Mr Maher, don't think that's "Free Speech", then you don't really understand what that is. As for the anti-Islam... just give it a rest. You're talking about over a billion people, only a tiny fraction of which have committed these atrocities. Or are you stating that every Catholic is an asshole because that one guy wants to punch you in the face? You're a smart guy, Mr Maher. But this isn't making you appear smart. As I said, I'm usually right there with you, but this was like watching my drunk uncle attempt to broach the benefits racism after several beers, hoping that if he rolled up on the subject slow-like, we'd be okay with it.
No one should be censored in a true democracy. It is no so much the right of someone to express unpopular, controversial or offensive ideas but the right of people to hear those ideas and judge for themselves that is so very important. No one can be qualified or trusted to decide what is to be censored. Why should any religious group get any more shield against offensive speech than any other group is beyond me.
I always think their is a line, freedom of speech, piss off, you can have your freedom of speech but if chat shit about my nan when whilst I am burying her see what your PRECIOUS freedom of speech gets you. It's just people with limited amounts of power in the public eye that care about FREEDOM OF SPEECH or trouble making twats....... shocking. Don't get me wrong I agree with Maher sometimes, just not on this. I don't want him promoting "SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT" because that just breeds immaturity , how about "THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK" or is that OPPRESSION of freedom of speech, lmao.
While I still don't like Bill Maher and disagree with him on a lot of things, I do respect him. At least he's an intellectually honest liberal. I wish more liberals could be like him. The honest debate of ideas is vital in a civilized society
100% agree with Maher. I think too many liberals are on the wrong side of this issue. Thoughts, opinions and ideas shouldn't be illegal and we shouldn't allow murderers and religious bullies to tell us what the limits of our rights are. Maher's rape analogy is spot on. Too many people are essentially saying "Violence is bad....but if you poke the hornet's nest, then its your fault. You should have known better". That's exactly like telling a rape victim "Rape is bad, but if you wear a slutty outfit, then its your fault. You should have known better". That's EXACTLY what the Pope said.
You are not alone. Today is my birthday, yes, 19th September.And as a gift, I have no news on TV, nor on last Friday My dad was a news junkie, he had to be because he was a diplomat. Without news, I die. Twitter/ facbkk cancelled metoo. That's not a good way on your Birthday. You are supposed to be happy to be.alive!
I am not a liberal, nor am I a centralist . I am a conservative and in the past I have disagreed with almost everything I heard Bill Maher say, till now! I agree 100% with everything he said on this subject and furthermore I find Mr. Donahue's and other "conservatives" similar statements disgusting. Even some big name conservatives like Rush, are agreeing with Mr. Maher on this. As a Catholic, I do not remember anyone saying that the Catholic church officials who tried to cover up the priest sex scandals were not really Catholic. Sure, I may find Charlie Hebdo and Maplethorp "artwork" very offensive, but I find shooting unarmed civilians far, far more offensive than that. What I, Bill, some liberals and even some conservatives seem to be saying is that any group, regardless of if it being political, social, ideological, government or even religious, if it acts like a bully, it deserves not deference but instead satire at least. I would frankly add that those who defend bullies bullying deserve contempt.
It's rare that things AGE WELL in this age of censorship and wokeness. THIS aged VERY WELL. Not all that ironic considering you've been saying this since your show "Polictially Incorrect" was the first victim of cancel culture 22 years or so ago lol
I read in the Huffington post somewhere, that the hallmark of free speech, is the ability to tolerate it. Where the line is drawn I believe is his point on Holocaust deniers. The Holocaust is a FACT. It Happened. To deny that the genocide of a people who committed no wrong to the German people at the time happened, is IMO, horrendous. Regarding the drawings of Charlie Hebdo, that right to free speech must be defended, because it was critiquing an idea/principle. Something that isn't a factual/historical event. There is no scientific proof/evidence a prophet called Muhammad existed, just like there is no scientific proof/evidence Jesus existed, they're both ideas. They are both susceptible to criticism. I stress, there are people (alive today) who survived the Holocaust. There are no people alive, or descendants of those people who can testify or have tangible evidence that Muhammad or Jesus existed. If I'm wrong, then please tell me if publicly denying mass murder and getting away with it, is fair?
If a petition came across my path to have Rush Limbaugh fired I would sign it. If a petition came across my path to have rush Limbaugh's home and assets liquidated, I wouldn't sign it. If Rush said the N Word on air, I would double-ly sign that petition; if he said it on the phone at home, I wouldn't consider it related. One is an attack on a person, the other a public forum; in this instance, forum comes before livelihood... an advocate has to be willing to be a pariah, not only in reality but in theory; as long as that criticism is related to that public forum. Ideas are not held to the same standards (or rights) to that of the individual; In this case he has made that platform his employment, as has Bill as a commencement/public speaker... fortunately there are completely common place and acceptable ways, for people to boycott any activity; even by petitioning to his employers and viewers, it does not make it a threat to freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech, it does not attempt to legally mandate anything. Bill Cosby is still touring, isn't he! So it's basically what you do for a living, between that and telling politicians to use good conscience. True enough! It is unfortunate that we(me included), often attack someone's platform for personal issues that are completely unrelated; because it doesn't further the argument or a sense of awareness. It also hurts when we can't look objectively at someone's personal politics and maybe see a good person in their private life, as a parent or friend. Bill Cosby probably excluded. But boycotting is abstaining and aspiring, not mandating legal repercussions; and not immune to missing the point, or shifting focus to something trivial in context of the issue. So you can keep your button, i'm not worried about extremism's impact on my freedom of speech. Because I recognize what institutions establish those restrictions and freedoms; I know that political cartoons aren't on the list, of documents unjustly proposed as a threat to public safety, by those same institutions. I am able to maintain focus on the actual problems and solutions surrounding violence; in my humble opinion telling people our freedom of speech is at risk, and that we all need to focus efforts on holding pencils in the air for "je suis charlie", falls short in both categories. As far as making cultural attacks goes, of course it's too easy an answer for anybody and it doesn't solve anything... it's kind of like equating Boycotts and petitions with arresting comedians and holocaust deniers. Or saying that "more weed for me", is going to end the drug war and topple pharmaceutical lobbies that push bad and overpriced drugs. But creating an argument that discredits the boycott and petitioning of public platforms and policy.. isn't so easily crafted. Because changing these kinds of ideas in principle will net you nothing. An advocate has to account for the principle and approach separately, before they count in the people who use them; because the only way to change the people, is to better utilize the idea. As a "board member" of P.E.T.A i'm sure Bill isn't 100% inline with some prior stances on service animals for the blind; the grossly disproportionate rate at which they euthanize rescues, the negative associations with arson and comments from people like Gary Yourofsky and Ingrid Newkirk, saying things like "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out." So maybe, just maybe him saying "the only religion that acts like the mafia (and will) kill you if you say the wrong thing or draw the wrong picture." is casting too large net, missing the point, or shifting focus to something trivial in context of the issue. And when people clap for it, maybe others should hold up signs and let a venue know it means enough to them.
I'm a big fan of Bill Maher and he's right about how some people "bully" others by calling them "racists." Unfortunately, Bill does this on regular occasion to Obama's critics. I was hoping that when the wrath of the Berkeley students was turned on him, he would appreciate the fact that you can criticize without malevolent motives.
Tell the truth or say nothing at all, otherwise you are part of the problem but not a criminal. You don't commit a crime by virtue of gossip and spreading rumours, but you may destroy someone else's life eg: Harry's. Isn't that reason enough to do the right thing. Zayn's own mom tried really hard to get rid of her. Posted and shared a bunch of stuff calling Zayn and Harry perfect and "they were perfect for each other from day one" - and what does G do, ignore her (Zayn's mom), and spreads more lies. She disrespected his mom, and got platforms willing to help her spread her lies and disrespect her more. What if you were the mom in question? Now, these platforms did not commit a crime, but they also didn't behave in a manner that commands respect. And kids are watching and following her as a good person to aspire to be if you want brand endorsements when you grow up and become an influencer. .......God help our kids.
Bill, 1:50. There are such things as male victims of rape or sexuial assualt and sexual harrasment, plenty of them,, and there are women who rape men or boys{need I mention all the older adult teachers and housemoms who've fucked their teen or tween students, stautory rape and sexual exploitation of a minor?}. When you protray issues that affect both genders and for which members of both genders are guilty and victims, it is sexism. In fact, in this case, which is ironic for you given you're rightful dislike of radical gender feminists, you are helping their gynocentric and misandric agenda out, by accident, I'm not condemning you for it, we all make mistakes and errors of judgement..especially when we are just saying something. And I just wanted to point this out to you. Thanks for listening. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you're saying here
Religious extremism should never be tolerated. We need to push back much, much harder. Calling out primitive, pre-medieval beliefs with no basis in reality isn't bigotry. It's called having a brain.
There is a jewish lesbian comic in my City that does radio shows as a guest for issue about the media because they also work at a local weekly news paper . What she misses about free speech for her Comedy to bash str8 people or christian males to keep muslims happy ( and her head) is when the topic comes up for Stand up comics where she claims it's Art , she also defend free speech until it's islam or gays issue that then comes the BUT with a list of groups with wavers. Sadly , as a feminist ,Jewish and lesbian it is pathetic to see she stays quiet over the 2 pro-hams groups in the PRIDE parade and also refuses to condemn sharia misogyny and homophobia like in Iran and gaza since she uses the Respect and Sensitivity to muslims but lumps that barbarism on to males as a feminist to give her an out and not upset muslims. . In 1989 there was a slaughter of 14 female students by Gamil Gharabi that had 20 females on his list to punish for offending allah and getting an education to take jobs from muslim men when they should be at home having babies. The perfect male for feminists to hate , right . When his suicide letter praised allah and detailed why he did it under sharia law ( since he shot his brains out once the mission was over) the feminists refused to link sharia law and imported islamic values because they had their Poster Boy to get more Funding and the real problem was white male christians . Even today , the feminists use their misandry to blame all males while the Muslim population now denies islam had anything to do with it because he wasn't a devout muslim as if that made it better for the 14 dead female students. Liberal progressives now seem to be the real bully and make it worse by their silence for oppression outside of N.America to gays , blacks , women , children and feminists. Plus the schools now have teachers that bully parents to obey the list of banned foods and they will get kids to rat on their parents that don'y recycle at home or leave lights on and cause global warming .
France and USA was built on the same values. If Charlie Hebdo had been an American publication, it would have been the single best representation of American values. Hebdo represents the values the entire modern Western civilization was built on. In the Western world, all ideas are up for criticism. And ridicule. No ideas are sacred. Western society does not recognize concepts like sacred or blasphemy. Hebdo is one of the most liberal publications in the world. It has always sided with immigrants and other minority groups against racists and fascists like the National Front. In fact, National Front is the publication's favorite target. Where were the so called liberals defending the racists' and fascists' right not to be ridiculed or offended?
Last night someone had written an article online about how they weren't a rape culture, after years of me trying to talk about my abuses I've suffered on-line and with others with no acknowledgement or help. Yes they are, and let's establish who the 'they' are since everyone always asks. 'They' are the WASP's who raised children and manipulated their minds that weren't their own, and other disgusting non human things they are hand in hand with. They have horrible eyes, very cold eyes, and they are loveless, but are good at pretending they can be in the public eye. 'They' are about rules, manners, education and conformity, whereas real people are about love and equality and warmth and happiness. 'They' care about materialistic wealth, control, power, property, and are competitive and regimented. People like to have fun and share and enjoy each other's talents. People believe in freedom and free will and free speech, and they don't. 'They' enslave people, blind us, and sexually molested and abused us. 'They' are evil and 'they' refuse to acknowledge, or accept responsibility or allow victims to have a voice and seek true justice. 'They' not only sexualized children, they also made children molest each other. The rape of my life continued into my adulthood, and the last time I was violated I was terrorized, thrown to the streets and quickly realized the police were not going to help. They have done very disgusting things to my body, and I have the proof inside me, but I can't find a doctor human enough to acknowledge or help. 'They' ARE a rape culture, they are perverse and they are cowards who refuse to acknowledge what they are. I could write a list of assaults and abuses done against me by 'them' but there are less and less real people who care, and more of them who don't and prefer to deny or discredit victims. There are shameless idiots on the internet, on UA-cam and even on the news who are making up false claims and sensationalizing abuse they claim to have suffered, which is a slap in the face to real victims whom they refuse to give truth or justice, and have been isolated, terrorized and made to look insane or accused of false crimes. When 'they' say they're not a rape culture, I am convinced they have no ability to be honest, and they are deviants who have no morals, no shame and no integrity. In fact, I think they can't exist without raping or abusing someone or something in their lives, including life itself. They don't acknowledge the rape of people, they don't acknowledge the rape of children and they still haven't acknowledged the rape of nature and this planet. The very fact they deny us a public voice or justice is proof of how 'they' are nothing BUT a rape society and culture.
Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for making anti-Semitic jokes at his publication. No one deserves to die over a cartoon, and according to freedom of speech, no one should be fired for them. Yet, why is it questionable that Muslims ask for the same treatment when it was clear that Charlie fully capable of it?...
The only thing I disagree with him about has to do with responsibility for personal safety. Your actions have consequences. If you are careless and engage is risky behavior. i.e. Dress like a whore and get blacked out drunk at a frat party, then you've got to accept a portion of the responsibility for getting raped. I'm sorry, but that's just common sense. It's like playing in traffic on a dangerous highway. You're begging to get hit by a car. The reality is that there are dangerous evil people in the world that want to hurt or kill you. If you think I'm wrong for saying all of this, ask the rape victim if she's got any future plans to get sloppy drunk in a mini skirt at the upcoming frat party? My guess is that she probably learned a valuable life lesson and won't be doing that ever again.
I like you Bill and I pretty much think like you except for your political allegiance. But they are going to get you for your real liberal way of thinking, and who is going to get you? Not the conservatives but your own kind. Now that's really funny don't you think???
There are consequences to free speech. There is no speech that is free. If someone insults your wife and family and friends, then you would probably want to kick there ass. There's people who love their religion just as much if not more, so you should expect consequences to what you say. Not saying it's right but I am saying it's what you can expect
There's a difference in free speech and spreading utterly false propaganda and hate like Limbaugh does. If it was free speech on Limbaugh's part, why doesn't he just call Obama what he really wants to along with the rest of the Republican party and that word starts with the letter 'N' and ends in 'R'.
I think Bill sometimes confuses censorship and people not liking the content of a message when he denounces all Muslims, especially many Muslims from western, democratic societies. Violence and censorship are abhorrent in their own insidious ways. Violence should never be an option, and all people from democratic societies should reject censorship with few qualifications. With that off the table that leaves us with Content and conflating people who don't like Content with those who employ censorship and violence. Western Muslims can totally reject violence and censorship and still take issue with the content of cartoons and Bill Maher's take on religion.
I was the “one guy” in the crowd who shouted “hear, hear!!” at the moment he thought he was losing the crowd. Chatted to Bill backstage afterwards and he was as indignant at the faux liberals in the green room as he was on stage. Also talked to Ms. Bigelow about the Chinese ivory trade (she was there to promote a documentary on endangered elephant species). Great night!
Is Bill short in real life
Much respect for Maher. That audience went silent, because half of them were the his target.
That's why I love the guy. He shits on everyone!
We need to clone this man. We need a Bill Maher in every country.
CraftyJane Bill maher for president
More like in every college.
In my country the goverment would kill him and the news would defend the killers :/
Yes man
Yeah, cause he calls out the lunatics on the left. And you and I both agree with him on that.
You can tell where the American cultural consciousness lies on this issue when a *Bill Maher* audience is largely silent when making points on the importance of free speech.
ThePromisedWLAN Afraid?
David Farner uhhhh...YES. i just watched that clip and when he stated how Islamophobia doesnt kill people the ak47s and planes into buildings do.........and the entire crowd was silent i was shocked.
Wait a minute now........ wtf happened to liberalism or loving freedom?? So lemme get this straight. Every guest up there could say "catholics are a screwed up old stinky religion stuck in the dark ages, based on some dirty desert wizard that never truly existed and because of their practice of.not letting priests marry have an issue of pedopholia"
I DARE YOU to honestly say that Audience would react with that same silence after my quote on Catholicism. There would at least be a few people clapping.
But make a comment on THE TERRORIST ELEMENT WITHIN ISLAM.............and the crowd....who are SUPPOSED to be objective people who fight for human and civil rights......
..are silent........ what the fuck happened to liberals. When did it become a cult mentality
Nobody said shit about free speech except you. Explain yourself dummy.
ThePromisedWLAN He said "islamophobia doesn't kill." That's just plainly incorrect. But hey, we agree about almost everything else.
stephen Toth: “dirty desert wizard” 🤣
I wish more people understood that freedom of speech is to protect speech that is disliked; speech that is abhorrent and infuriating. Popular speech, by definition, doesn't need protection.
Good job, Bill. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Fuck political correctness!
Political Correctness is a shaming tactic to suppress the open and obvious truth. It IS censorship, it is denial, evil & destructive.
It's America's NEWEST intolerance.
Because it's a rigid system of uptight, rigid rules that kills honesty, joy, dissent and truth. It's intent is to control, deceive and manipulate in the name of fairness. Sounds like censorship to me.
What are YOUR reasons for being politically correct? To fit in and conform? Acceptance from your peers? It's what all the hipsters are doing?
Political Correctness= McCarthyism for soft, pussified, uptight millennials.
Political correctness has been taken from being a good idea, from "lets not be mean particularly to people who are not able to look after themselves very well", to the point where any kind of criticism of any kind of individual or group can be labelled cruel, insensitive, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, anti-whatever.
If you start to think "ooh, we mustn’t criticise or offend them", humour is gone, with humour goes a sense of proportion, and then as far as I’m concerned we’re living in a 1984 Orwellian nightmare.
Maturity also means taking responsibility for ones feelings and reactions.
When I hear people say "I'm offended" more often than not, it's a form of sanctified bullying. What they're really saying is "how dare you disagree with me. And since you do disagree with me, I'm going to coerce you and shame you, and call you all sorts of nasty things until you do.
In this case, open dialogue, honesty, truth and humour are dead.
Malcolm Nicoll q
I like how the audience does not know/want to clap at the start, seems like some of them were the target of the joke.
My personal favorite "argument" that actually seems to have a lot of traction in academic and political circles is that we need to ban "hate speech" in order to protect "free speech".
Also the idea that never having your religion challenged or satirized is somehow, magically "a basic human right".
This is nonsense. Because you're unable to tolerate any criticism of your religion does not make ME intolerant. I'm not about to arrest you or behead you for practicing Islam of your own free accord. Me having a problem with muslims using violence to stop criticism IS NOT intolerant. Having serious problems with aspects of any given religion (a big one being their assumed protection from any and all criticism in the first place) does not make me intolerant. Free and open criticism is not intolerant. If your "faith" says it's ok to arrest or harm people for simply pointing at *potential* faults in your belief system, then you prove it to be the violent unthinking reactionary craziness you're claiming it isn't. And THAT's what intolerance is. Violence against dissent.
Bill is not becoming more conservative; he's a classical liberal when it comes to personal freedom. As in, he wants more of it. Banning so-called hate speech is detrimental so personal freedom. So is banning a 32 oz soda, for that matter.
@Dan Ross Bill fucking hates conservatives, and it's awfully sickening to hear conservatives talking about free speech, they don't give a flying fuck about free speech, unless it's convenient for them, they are the ones who censored Bill by getting Politically Incorrect cancelled. They are the ones who are politically correct by pushing their implemented patriotism, as they lose their minds if someone disrespect the flag or the good old values, and they praise Bill for spiting Islam, but they go crazy when he attacks Christianity. They got his movie censored in most US theaters ten years ago. Conservatives hate free speech, and they are ironically more politically correct than they think.
@Dan Ross
No some leftists are simply adopting the tactics and attitudes that I have seen on the right for decades. There are not too many points on which I do not generally agree with the goals of the self-styled "SJWs", but I can't stand most of them. Dogmatic, evidence ignoring (or twisting) wind bags so convinced of their righteousness that they can't tolerate other opinions - just like conservatives have tended to be for all of my 57 year life. It's not that the are farther to the left (well some are) but that they are acting like conservatives.
I don't defend any religion at all.
+Enrique Godinez Not even Buddhism?
Guercinator
Eh. I respect spirituality however I don't defend any established religion and dogmas any systemaic religion.
Buddhism is overrated
***** doesn't really address my question, but okay.
Guercinator Plenty of Buddhists have done terrible things. Look up the ethnic cleansing in Bhutan and Nepal
One of very few liberals I like. It's nice to know not all liberals live with their heads in the sand about Islam.
Because he's an ACTUAL LIBERAL. People have ruined the liberal meaning nowadays. SOME (not all) have become so far left that they are worse than republicans.
Rachel Dalton It's not that easy for a far-leftist to become worse than the average republican. You have to be a hypocrit and pretty stupid aswell
Joseph McDermott Uhmm Nazi Germany wasn't far-left and Mussolini USED TO BE a socialist, but when he got his power, his fascist troops beat up any lefty they could find
***** Yeah right
Joseph McDermott You can't generalize that, that's what western propaganda says. And Pol Pot barely has anything to do with left-wing politics, just like Stalin. Neither of em are good examples for the casual leftist.
And there's not only communism btw
Agreed, I'm more left leaning but i hate the pc movement.
Every person in America should watch this video.
Well, I guess that when you constantly manage to offend both conservatives and liberals, you must be doing something right.
Bill, I admire you but you are showing double standards regarding France march here. You criticize Pope but not Obama. He's equally guilty of not showing up there.
are you that much of an Obama hater that you cant put anything in context- the pope said people shouldn't criticize religion- Obama stated the opposite "free speech is essential to western democracy"- yet you concentrate on another issue entirely
Maximus Minimus yeah obama doesnt support the self censorship attitude. Also being leader of the free world, he tends to have a busy schedule.
Connor O'Brien ironically he did exactly what poster freelyexpressed complained about- he actually did take a dig at Obama for missing the march earlier in tonites segment -
Maximus Minimus So my Obama lover why he didn't show up there!!! and I don't like double standards.
freelyexpressed hey dumbass- maher slayed Obama for not showing up earlier in this same episode so you spoke before getting all the facts like a typical anti Obama goon- however the secret service said it would have been dangerous for Obama to go- by the way I didn't vote for Obama I voted for gary Johnson as a 3rd party alternative
Ei yo I'm a Muslim and I loved Charlie Hebdo's cartoons, they were biting,offensive and that's exactly what comics should be
If you’re actually Muslim you wouldn’t support something like this.
@@almostafa4725 Yet you're watching Bill Maher. The prophet PBUH had a neighboring family that used to put obstacles in front of his home and on his way, but he never cared for it, and when it stopped, he asked what happened to that family, and was told that the father had died. I'm really struggling to see where in the Qur'an or Hadith does it say behead those who oppose Allah or don't agree with Islam ?
Youssef Hegazy I’m really struggling to see how you even came up with that conclusion.
Al Mostafa I didn’t hypothesize anything, to have concluded anything. If you have nothing good to say, then don’t say anything brother.
Youssef Hegazy What did I say that was not good?
My favorite supporting character on this show is "One Guy".
He will make appearances every once in while.
I love Bill for the same reason I hate him, and it makes me love him even more.
Bahahaha exactly
Beautiful ideas, but in order to live in a community - whatever the community - you need rules. Maybe only very few rules, as George Carlin once pointed out, but you need some.
In France, free speech has never been debated (our current political regime dates from 1958, it's not that old), so it's just in our minds that we have free speech, that's one of the reasons that attack on Charlie Hebdo hurt us so much.
Free speech in France does have three limitations, though, as stated by the Law:
-defamation or libel
-insult
-invasion of privacy.
That's all, everything else is fair game.
The comedian Bill Maher is referring to is Dieudonné, who's more of a public anti-Semite than a comedian. He was arrested for _being an apologist of crime_, _incitement to hatred_ and _incitement to violence_, it has nothing to do with free speech or his 'opinions'.
What did Dieudonné say that was worthy of arrest?
Many things; in essence, his 'comedic shows' are nothing more than anti-Semitic rallies, and he has been arrested (sometimes comdemned, somtimes discharged) many times because of the content of his speeches.
He posted on his Facebook page that he felt closer to Amedy Coulibaly (another terrorist who coordinated his attacks with that of the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo shooting) than the victims, which I think is what warranted the arrest.
If that is a piece of information that has not widely made it to other countries: to be concise, Amedy Coulibaly was being pursued by the police for many kilometres. He eventually entered a kosher butcher's shop and held ten people hostages inside. He killed five before being shot by the police.
So yeah, Jews being killed = Dieudonné condones the act. No wonder the French Ministry of Justice is going after him.
*****
Err, no? The attacks on Dieudonné are more than well-founded. He's a hatemonger who has infringed upon the law on many occasions, how is that racist?
He has never been called out for being black, you're making shit up.
Dieudonné comparing himself to Charlie is adding insult to injury: Charlie promotes love, peace and intelligence, Dieudonné promotes hatred, violence and stupidity. There's a reason he is not treated like Charlie.
Also, please explain how preventing people from denying the existence of concentration camps during WWII is creating a false history. It's actually making sure a false history is NOT created.
Racist remarks in France are not illegal unless they are meant as an insult, in which case the problem is the insulting part, not the racist remark part.
Sounds to me like you know nothing about French Law and are just blindly repeating what you've heard elsewhere.
Know the facts before you speak again; if there's anything we do not need in such a situation it's people talking out of their arses and spreading lies.
keffypoo
Some translated quotes of what he said would have been nice.
The choice America has made, for what it is worth, is that free speech includes "incitement to hatred" no matter how distasteful it is, but not "incitement to violence". I support this. As an example consider that I hate the KKK and if I spoke about the KKK would be guilty of incitement to hatred. Still I would never call for a KKK member to be assassinated. That would be an incitement to violence.
Can provide any quotes of him inciting to violence?
Not at the moment. Has a Google search not yielded anything?
I remember following the story concerning his previous arrest and ban from several French cities. The public action against him cited him condoning violence that had been done to Jews in the past, including WWII, of course, but also the bombing of synagogues and the Toulouse shootings in which *children* were killed (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings).
Applying commercial pressure (like boycotting Rush Limbaugh sponsors) seems like an expression of speech, and different from legal pressure. It's temping to ban hate speech like Holocaust denial, though there's a problem in defining hate speech (like when any criticism of religion is taken as religious bigotry)
Yeah, but the ultimate goal of that commercial pressure is not to make speech of their own, not to _add_ anything to the debate, but to make someone else's speech go away, to censor. In other words, they're doing exactly what a law against free speech would do. Not good.
I like Bill, but he was wrong about Rush Limbaugh. Nothing in the first amendment says that private sponsors have to keep supporting Rush's radio show if he's bad for their business.
+AirsoftTim92 thats not the point, he doesnt mean its against freedom of speech as in its illegal, he means it goes against the liberal principal of being able to share your opinion without bullshit censorship, so what they did isnt against freedom of speech, but its defeating the purpose of it
He didn't suggest that the add was illegal, and in that respect against free speech. He effectively said that setting up an org in order to pressure sponsors to stop funding defeats the purpose of free speech, although it may be legel. It is one thing to critique a voice and thereby hoping to silence the bad ideas expressed. It is quite another thing to put social pressure onto someone aiming to instill fear to use their voice or be associated with it.
The self censoring that is associated with PC is legal, but it still undermines free speech. Freedom of speech is only partially about law, formal issues. It is also about substantial issues like being reasonably capable of supporting oneself and voicing ones concern.
I don't care for Bill Maher, but he is 100% correct here.
The way we treat Islam and terorism is classic victim blaming. Everyone is guilty but those poor people who kill people.
It's no secret that Islamists are fanatical and psychotic. If they tell you that they will kill you for making a cartoon about Mohammed. You should probably believe them. Don't get me wrong, I completely support Charlie Hebdo's right to fuck with them and piss them off, but when they come and kill them, of course I'm going to put some of the blame on the victim. Why should I not? Think about a small kid. You tell them, "Stop teasing the dog, it's going to bite you" What do you say to the kid when it happens? "See, I told you"
not a fan of Bill but respect for his unconditional support for FREE SPEECH
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize rush limbaugh or anyone else you disagree with.
+Rilian Sharp
Yes, it does - but it does not include trying to force him to shut up.
+Pat Doyle to try to convince other people to stop listening or funding him? yes you do have that right.
Rilian Sharp
You are correct - to an extent. Hopefully, the internet will make you 100% correct. But in the world as it is today, radio and TV are still massive sources of influence. And since it requires a lot of money to get noticed there, trying to stop funding is little different from censorship.
Pat Doyle It sounds like you're saying people should fund someone they disagree with.
Rilian Sharp
There is a bit of a fine distinction that I failed to make clear. I have no problem with a person not buying products from some company funding speech they don't like, but it often goes much further than that. Demands for people to be taken off air, or to be fired or forced to apologize, I think is going too far. But they can stop listening to the show if they were a listener.
But as I said on a similar Maher video, when he was calling such actions a violation of free speech rights, that is not true. I said that he was guaranteed free speech, but not a prime time HBO podium to speak from.
So my previous comment was more an opinion of proper behavior simply out of prudence - to make speech as free as possible.
respect to Bill Maher
I consider myself a moderate conservative, and I also agree with this video and what Bill has to say. FREE SPEECH is for everyone as long as you don't yell fire in a crowded building. Everyone should be made fun of, not just this group or that group but everyone. I am also a Christian and I am not offended in any way about his views on religion because he has as much right to speak his mind, as I do. No violence to get my point across, just clear level headed comments, and a ability to discuss with those who oppose your views to try and find a common ground. Far too many people want things their way or the highway. FREE SPEECH IS DEAD!!
claim of Offense cannot be ground to limit free speech , it's too subjective: what is offensive varies from individuals to individuals, from groups to groups and the surrounding context. People who claim offense often respond with their own share of offense. Being offended is an emotional reaction which one can control. In other words, if you insult me, I can choose to be hurt or not depending on my emotional maturity, whereas if you punch me in the face, it will hurt whether I want it or not.
I'm offended by what I found in the Koran about infidels (hate-speech at its crudest), but I'll not demand that the book be banned unless I want them to be able to ban say Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verse je Voltaire's Treatises on Tolerance.
You are a believer, believe whatever you will, just do not insist that I believe the same things too under threat of censorship or violence as you wouldn't want anyone to do the same to you.
Boycotting Limbaugh isn't an infringement of free speech because they were not making it illegal for him to give his opinions...they simply didn't like his show and didn't want people to watch it. I feel the same way about The Big Bang Theory, doesn't mean I want it to be illegal for Jim Parsons to make a TV show
No one has the right to censor anyone but you have to be aware your words may harm those who don't deserve it.
those who decide to be violent becuase they got their feelings hurt need to be locked up
That's why we, (in America,) have laws against assault and battery but few laws against blasphemy and slander based on satire.
EH CBunny Because that's freedom of speech. Sure its a dick movie maybe to be that way in some cases, but you also have the freedom to insult them back.
Though as a society we should be educated to move past juvenile criticism to focus on the benefits of society, but our freedom of speech should always be held dear.
I feel though if something is getting parody, its probably called for.
How about claiming Ferguson's riot was started by a word from Brown's relative?
Liberals and conservatives lean towards the culturally elite who are the root cause of the mess the country, denying equal rights, rule of law and due process protocol.
Free speech gives you the write to express yourself but it does not protect you from getting your feelings hurt.
yet no one deserves to be killed- period!!!
A teacher or a public figure should be accused of a crime when denies holocaust during his service. History is not an opinion
can't help but imagine olaf sitting there with bill whenever josh gad laughs at his jokes
free speech =! consequence free speech :)
I'm not the biggest fan of Bill Maher, typically, I agree with about 50% of his stuff. But on matters like this, he often hits the nail square on the head. Here he has said exactly what needed to be said. Two thumbs up from me.
I hate Bill Maher’s political views, but love his social views. He’s the only liberal that speaks the truth
Don't become fanatical about extremist views. It's all about ideology that does not amount to a hill of beans.
I don’t think they went silent so much because he struck a nerve, but because it was one of those solemn moments where you think inward for a min
If they’re thinking inwardly....then doesn’t that mean he struck a nerve with them?
@@lathanandrews417 Yeah, I guess so. Didn’t think of it that way
New Rule: Muslims aren't allowed to get pissed off over a drawing of the Prophet and still take money from countries that are persecuting Muslim minorities. Take my country Bangladesh for example; a few years ago a few atheist bloggers were brutally murdered for criticising Islam in a blog that only 4 people, who really have no lives of their own, read. While at the same time Bangladesh is happily accepting money from China while they build Uighur camps.
My people will praise Saudia Arabia as the proper 1st world developed country that upholds Islamic values, while being on the forefront of development, but conveniently ignore what they're doing to Yemen, women, LGBT+, and journalists.
Muslims affectionately refer to each other as "brothers and sisters", but C'mon business is booming, let the powerful people have a little Geneva Convention violation party. If the Prophet was alive today, which one do you think he would be more bothered by: the caricature on page N of a French newspaper that, let's be honest; you've never read, or the glaring human rights attrocities that you genuinely know about but turn a blind eye to because $$$$$?
Because you know in Islamic beliefs that makes you something called a "munafiq", which means hypocrite. And according to Islamic beliefs, that means you've saved yourself a spot on the lowest pit of hell. Fun fact: in the lowest pit of hell 72 fuck boi doms have their way with you, and they don't use any lube.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
We have to allow everyone to speak...
Mr. Maher, I love your unapologetic passion for freedom of speech and expression, a common ground we share.
Bill's audience was either too stupid to understand what he was saying, or were smart enough to understand what he was saying.
I love every time he makes a good point and his audience is nearly all silent. Then someone claps and he says, "Thanks, one guy!" Half the time though, his message strikes such a serious chord and the sheer clarity with which it is delivered is what makes people silent.
Yeah, I agree with that. It wasn’t that the audience wasn’t with him, they were just dumb struck - In a good way
yeah that woke audience WILL think again when it's in "their neck of the woods". pun intended.
I think Rush Limbaugh's cholesterol level is going to make him 'go away', eventually...
new rule...only stupid comments get laughs for Bill
I'm a Christian Tea Party Conservative who is not a fan off Maher but I agree with his view of free speech.
Thanks for your intellectual, artistic and moral courage, Mr. Maher! The world would be a better place if more people expressed those qualities.
Well I don't agree that hate speech should be included in free speech. Some of your examples are a bit off. But the broad point about the excesses of political correctness and cancel culture is good.
Free speech in the United States refers to the right to express one’s self without fear of persecution by the state. It doesn’t protect you from someone’s rebuttal though. They are also entitled to free speech. These things seem to get forgotten often nowadays!
That's not his point. His point is how to combat bad ideas and bad ideology is for more speech. Not new words.
a rebuttal is allowed, but most certainly not murdering others and silencing them with cancel culture
The Catholic response, at its worst, is to threaten to punch you in the nose. The Muslim response, at its worse, is....
well.....
Conservatism doesn't put up with this crap. Just saying.
Yea not a fan of complete free speech. I think europe has it right.
any Muslim that tells you they're about equal rights and peace for all religions remember to look up what "taqiyya" means
The following are a set of "aya", or verses (basically a sentence or two), within the koran which all state similar messages, that a Muslim cannot and should not state dominion over a non-believer or a wrong doer, and shouldn't punish them for their actions, your sole duty being to just notify them, once. The main point that you'll see is that god is, well, an omnipotent and omniscient being, so he doesn't need you to do that for him. The koran isn't perfect- you'll see it describe some frankly horrendous acts that will be committed against wrongdoers when they go to hell, according the book, but they still clearly state that you cannot punish them. Let me begin:
Surat Al-Kāfirūn (The Disbelievers) - The entire sura
Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) - 2:256
Surat Al-Kahf (The Cave) - 18:29
Surat Al-'An`ām (The Cattle) - 6:104
Surat Al-'Isrā' (The Night Journey) - 17:7
Surat 'Āli `Imrān (Family of Imran) - 3:20
Surat At-Taghābun (The Mutual Disillusion) - 64:12
Surat An-Nūr (The Light) - 24:54
Surat Yūnus (Jonah) - 10:108 and 10:99
Surat Al-Mā'idah (The Table Spread) 5:48
Surat An-Naĥl (The Bee) 16:125
I'm not expecting you to read all of them, that would be insane, but here they are if you need to refer to it. It's just that it clearly shows, multiple times in fact, that the faith is for equal rights. It's just that there are people who are interpreting it violently and radically, and ignoring these verses saying NOT to punish non-believers. That doesn't mean the entire religion is to blame- religion is personal and depends on how an individual decides to interpret it.
Gosh we’d have to say that about every religion now wouldn’t we? But that’s the cynical view of the world. Instead we judge the merits of people individually and not on the whole. At least we’re supposed to.
That's the first amendment, folks!!!!!!!!!
It's funny how the crowd laughs freely at Catholicism but is dead silent when its Islam 🤔
I believe they just love the religion of peace. I mean, what’s not to love? You have bombings, beheadings, suppression of free speech. It is the desired world.
We already live in it here in Europe 😂
The bestest commentator of all time.
Bestest?
Booya! This was the best New Rules so far!
As a European, I absolutely support jail time for denying holocaust. The laws are actually intricate and carefully used. And, as Karl Popper theorized, unlimited freedom enables the enemies of freedom to destroy it. It's not as simple as "freedom is always good and shouldn't be restricted". American free speech concept is perverted and it results in a less free society than is in EU.
1:40 I disagree . The guys in Charlie Hebdo understood full well what could happen.
They just chose not to be cowards who let religious fanatics dictate what they can say and what not.
Unlike most of the media in the UK or America who will not even publish the new frontage of Charlie Hebdo, cowering in fear to defend the freedom that is basic to their job.
Let me know when free speech is over. I'd like to yank the sign in front of my neighborhood church out of the ground.
this is such an obvious truth that I can't believe anyone would debate it. I wonder if in the future, when mind reading technology becomes common, people will have to defend freedom of thought? I wouldn't be surprised at attempted legislation to make thinking certain things illegal. Shit, I'm still amazed daily how little freedom we have in the U.S. over our own lives. Police should exist solely to combat predators in my opinion. Murderers, thieves, sexual predators should be their main(95%) focus. Instead, police are a self-serving institution that focuses on seizures and breeds corrupt, power drunk cops that focus on drugs cause that's where the undocumented, easily confiscated cash is. I've had cops threaten to confiscate my rent money if I couldn't provide a reciept proving where it came from. It's not a waste of time for them, they are raking in the dough and arresting everybody. Drug possession cannot be compared to even simple battery, yet with the exception of less than a half-ounce of marijuana, which is a misdemeanor, possession is always a felony. So hitting someone with your fists is not as serious a crime as simply consuming an "illegal" drug. Meanwhile, over half the country are prescribed some kind of psychoactive drug about which long-term effects are completely unknown. Sadly, we could be missing out on more effective therapies because of a lack of research. We are just starting to catch up with marijuana, which is turning out to have a staggering amount of diverse health benefits when used therapeutically. psychedelics could be an awesome therapeutic tool for myriad different psychiatric issues; PTSD, depression, ect. but the whole psychiatry biz is also about profit, and rarely do people suffering from these get cured, or even effective treatment. A doctor that truly listens to the patients is also rare. offering alternative therapies is rare too, and usually have to be inquired about. Depression? put them on an extremely physically addictive drug (SSRI's can have a longer or worse withdrawl than opiates) like zoloft or something, and don't even bother to mention that. wow sorry I'm ranting!
Nobody hates stinging satire! They just don't like it when it is aimed at them. Instead of being known as Homo Sapiens (meaning "wise man") we should be called Homo Hypocritus.
Come on Bill! It’s fine you’re not a believer. As a matter of fact your rant on it has many logical points. But leave those that do believe alone. Their not all extremists.
He's obviously not saying they are
The trouble with "not extremists" is that they do nothing about the extremists.
RIP Rush Limbaugh
The audience was dead
Will humans put away the differences in humans enough to end the sufferings of humans? When? I pray. ~ View photo at muddavugger@twitter.com
To those saying, _"Yes, but how do we _*_solve_*_ the Islamic Jihad threat?"_, here's one of many solutions....
*Solution 1:* Let's eradicate the idea that faith(_belief despite sufficient evidence_) is a good thing. Believing false ideas *_always_* leads to worse outcomes for humanity than believing only what you *_can and do_* know. _Why does reality exist?_ *No one knows.* We need less arrogance/faith and more *_honesty_*(satire is important). That would solve a good majority of humanity's *_many_* problems.
Bill Maher is appallingly ignorant when it comes to religion. It's really the weakest point of any routine he does, because it's so easy for anyone with even a passing familiarity with the subject (which, granted, excludes most atheists >badump-ching
Relax, lesbians, Kim Jung Oon just LOOKS like a lesbian.
I agree with Bill about free speech, but how is boycotting not also freedom of expression? I don't believe anyone is saying Rush should be imprisoned, just that they hate him so much that, that hate spreads to his supporters. And if you hate someone, why would you buy their products?
Everyone is the sought of his own sake. In my opinion, free speach is not to use for bastardize others, unless 'you are just a baby'. Make strike a cord will always have a pushback.
Wow....bills fans must be real special....so not funny...picking on religions ....he doesn't have anything intelligent to say
Would love to see Kieth Olberman as a guest some day.
Wow. I usually like Maher, but this was just fucking painful.
Sorry, but I don't think you understand "free speech". No one is asking Congress to make Rush shut up, they are instead using their constitutionally protected Free Speech to talk to Rush's advertisers. It is the heart and soul of what "Free Speech" is. If you, Mr Maher, don't think that's "Free Speech", then you don't really understand what that is.
As for the anti-Islam... just give it a rest. You're talking about over a billion people, only a tiny fraction of which have committed these atrocities. Or are you stating that every Catholic is an asshole because that one guy wants to punch you in the face?
You're a smart guy, Mr Maher. But this isn't making you appear smart. As I said, I'm usually right there with you, but this was like watching my drunk uncle attempt to broach the benefits racism after several beers, hoping that if he rolled up on the subject slow-like, we'd be okay with it.
No one should be censored in a true democracy. It is no so much the right of someone to express unpopular, controversial or offensive ideas but the right of people to hear those ideas and judge for themselves that is so very important. No one can be qualified or trusted to decide what is to be censored. Why should any religious group get any more shield against offensive speech than any other group is beyond me.
🌹🕊Thank you Bill and gratitude for each one of yours🌹🕊🥰🙏🌹🕊
I always think their is a line, freedom of speech, piss off, you can have your freedom of speech but if chat shit about my nan when whilst I am burying her see what your PRECIOUS freedom of speech gets you.
It's just people with limited amounts of power in the public eye that care about FREEDOM OF SPEECH or trouble making twats....... shocking.
Don't get me wrong I agree with Maher sometimes, just not on this.
I don't want him promoting "SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT" because that just breeds immaturity , how about "THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK" or is that OPPRESSION of freedom of speech, lmao.
While I still don't like Bill Maher and disagree with him on a lot of things, I do respect him. At least he's an intellectually honest liberal. I wish more liberals could be like him. The honest debate of ideas is vital in a civilized society
Loved it!
100% agree with Maher. I think too many liberals are on the wrong side of this issue. Thoughts, opinions and ideas shouldn't be illegal and we shouldn't allow murderers and religious bullies to tell us what the limits of our rights are.
Maher's rape analogy is spot on. Too many people are essentially saying "Violence is bad....but if you poke the hornet's nest, then its your fault. You should have known better".
That's exactly like telling a rape victim "Rape is bad, but if you wear a slutty outfit, then its your fault. You should have known better".
That's EXACTLY what the Pope said.
You are not alone. Today is my birthday, yes, 19th September.And as a gift, I have no news on TV, nor on last Friday
My dad was a news junkie, he had to be because he was a diplomat. Without news, I die. Twitter/ facbkk cancelled metoo. That's not a good way on your Birthday. You are supposed to be happy to be.alive!
I am not a liberal, nor am I a centralist . I am a conservative and in the past I have disagreed with almost everything I heard Bill Maher say, till now! I agree 100% with everything he said on this subject and furthermore I find Mr. Donahue's and other "conservatives" similar statements disgusting. Even some big name conservatives like Rush, are agreeing with Mr. Maher on this. As a Catholic, I do not remember anyone saying that the Catholic church officials who tried to cover up the priest sex scandals were not really Catholic. Sure, I may find Charlie Hebdo and Maplethorp "artwork" very offensive, but I find shooting unarmed civilians far, far more offensive than that. What I, Bill, some liberals and even some conservatives seem to be saying is that any group, regardless of if it being political, social, ideological, government or even religious, if it acts like a bully, it deserves not deference but instead satire at least. I would frankly add that those who defend bullies bullying deserve contempt.
Boycotting something is okay, but using force to stop something that isn't violating other rights is wrong
It's rare that things AGE WELL in this age of censorship and wokeness. THIS aged VERY WELL. Not all that ironic considering you've been saying this since your show "Polictially Incorrect" was the first victim of cancel culture 22 years or so ago lol
We are immensely appreciative to have your intellect and eloquence today. Thank you ever so WOW kindly🙏🌹🕊
I read in the Huffington post somewhere, that the hallmark of free speech, is the ability to tolerate it. Where the line is drawn I believe is his point on Holocaust deniers. The Holocaust is a FACT. It Happened. To deny that the genocide of a people who committed no wrong to the German people at the time happened, is IMO, horrendous. Regarding the drawings of Charlie Hebdo, that right to free speech must be defended, because it was critiquing an idea/principle. Something that isn't a factual/historical event. There is no scientific proof/evidence a prophet called Muhammad existed, just like there is no scientific proof/evidence Jesus existed, they're both ideas. They are both susceptible to criticism. I stress, there are people (alive today) who survived the Holocaust. There are no people alive, or descendants of those people who can testify or have tangible evidence that Muhammad or Jesus existed. If I'm wrong, then please tell me if publicly denying mass murder and getting away with it, is fair?
If a petition came across my path to have Rush Limbaugh fired I would sign it. If a petition came across my path to have rush Limbaugh's home and assets liquidated, I wouldn't sign it. If Rush said the N Word on air, I would double-ly sign that petition; if he said it on the phone at home, I wouldn't consider it related.
One is an attack on a person, the other a public forum; in this instance, forum comes before livelihood... an advocate has to be willing to be a pariah, not only in reality but in theory; as long as that criticism is related to that public forum. Ideas are not held to the same standards (or rights) to that of the individual; In this case he has made that platform his employment, as has Bill as a commencement/public speaker... fortunately there are completely common place and acceptable ways, for people to boycott any activity; even by petitioning to his employers and viewers, it does not make it a threat to freedom of speech, it is freedom of speech, it does not attempt to legally mandate anything. Bill Cosby is still touring, isn't he! So it's basically what you do for a living, between that and telling politicians to use good conscience.
True enough! It is unfortunate that we(me included), often attack someone's platform for personal issues that are completely unrelated; because it doesn't further the argument or a sense of awareness. It also hurts when we can't look objectively at someone's personal politics and maybe see a good person in their private life, as a parent or friend. Bill Cosby probably excluded.
But boycotting is abstaining and aspiring, not mandating legal repercussions; and not immune to missing the point, or shifting focus to something trivial in context of the issue. So you can keep your button, i'm not worried about extremism's impact on my freedom of speech. Because I recognize what institutions establish those restrictions and freedoms; I know that political cartoons aren't on the list, of documents unjustly proposed as a threat to public safety, by those same institutions. I am able to maintain focus on the actual problems and solutions surrounding violence; in my humble opinion telling people our freedom of speech is at risk, and that we all need to focus efforts on holding pencils in the air for "je suis charlie", falls short in both categories.
As far as making cultural attacks goes, of course it's too easy an answer for anybody and it doesn't solve anything... it's kind of like equating Boycotts and petitions with arresting comedians and holocaust deniers. Or saying that "more weed for me", is going to end the drug war and topple pharmaceutical lobbies that push bad and overpriced drugs.
But creating an argument that discredits the boycott and petitioning of public platforms and policy.. isn't so easily crafted. Because changing these kinds of ideas in principle will net you nothing. An advocate has to account for the principle and approach separately, before they count in the people who use them; because the only way to change the people, is to better utilize the idea.
As a "board member" of P.E.T.A i'm sure Bill isn't 100% inline with some prior stances on service animals for the blind; the grossly disproportionate rate at which they euthanize rescues, the negative associations with arson and comments from people like Gary Yourofsky and Ingrid Newkirk, saying things like "Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out."
So maybe, just maybe him saying "the only religion that acts like the mafia (and will) kill you if you say the wrong thing or draw the wrong picture." is casting too large net, missing the point, or shifting focus to something trivial in context of the issue. And when people clap for it, maybe others should hold up signs and let a venue know it means enough to them.
I'm a big fan of Bill Maher and he's right about how some people "bully" others by calling them "racists." Unfortunately, Bill does this on regular occasion to Obama's critics. I was hoping that when the wrath of the Berkeley students was turned on him, he would appreciate the fact that you can criticize without malevolent motives.
Tell the truth or say nothing at all, otherwise you are part of the problem but not a criminal.
You don't commit a crime by virtue of gossip and spreading rumours, but you may destroy someone else's life eg: Harry's. Isn't that reason enough to do the right thing. Zayn's own mom tried really hard to get rid of her. Posted and shared a bunch of stuff calling Zayn and Harry perfect and "they were perfect for each other from day one" - and what does G do, ignore her (Zayn's mom), and spreads more lies. She disrespected his mom, and got platforms willing to help her spread her lies and disrespect her more. What if you were the mom in question?
Now, these platforms did not commit a crime, but they also didn't behave in a manner that commands respect. And kids are watching and following her as a good person to aspire to be if you want brand endorsements when you grow up and become an influencer. .......God help our kids.
Bill, 1:50. There are such things as male victims of rape or sexuial assualt and sexual harrasment, plenty of them,, and there are women who rape men or boys{need I mention all the older adult teachers and housemoms who've fucked their teen or tween students, stautory rape and sexual exploitation of a minor?}. When you protray issues that affect both genders and for which members of both genders are guilty and victims, it is sexism. In fact, in this case, which is ironic for you given you're rightful dislike of radical gender feminists, you are helping their gynocentric and misandric agenda out, by accident, I'm not condemning you for it, we all make mistakes and errors of judgement..especially when we are just saying something. And I just wanted to point this out to you. Thanks for listening.
Otherwise, I agree with everything else you're saying here
Religious extremism should never be tolerated. We need to push back much, much harder.
Calling out primitive, pre-medieval beliefs with no basis in reality isn't bigotry. It's called having a brain.
There is a jewish lesbian comic in my City that does radio shows as a guest for issue about the media because they also work at a local weekly news paper .
What she misses about free speech for her Comedy to bash str8 people or christian males to keep muslims happy ( and her head) is when the topic comes up for Stand up comics where she claims it's Art , she also defend free speech until it's islam or gays issue that then comes the BUT with a list of groups with wavers.
Sadly , as a feminist ,Jewish and lesbian it is pathetic to see she stays quiet over the 2 pro-hams groups in the PRIDE parade and also refuses to condemn sharia misogyny and homophobia like in Iran and gaza since she uses the Respect and Sensitivity to muslims but lumps that barbarism on to males as a feminist to give her an out and not upset muslims. .
In 1989 there was a slaughter of 14 female students by Gamil Gharabi that had 20 females on his list to punish for offending allah and getting an education to take jobs from muslim men when they should be at home having babies.
The perfect male for feminists to hate , right . When his suicide letter praised allah and detailed why he did it under sharia law ( since he shot his brains out once the mission was over) the feminists refused to link sharia law and imported islamic values because they had their Poster Boy to get more Funding and the real problem was white male christians .
Even today , the feminists use their misandry to blame all males while the Muslim population now denies islam had anything to do with it because he wasn't a devout muslim as if that made it better for the 14 dead female students.
Liberal progressives now seem to be the real bully and make it worse by their silence for oppression outside of N.America to gays , blacks , women , children and feminists. Plus the schools now have teachers that bully parents to obey the list of banned foods and they will get kids to rat on their parents that don'y recycle at home or leave lights on and cause global warming .
France and USA was built on the same values. If Charlie Hebdo had been an American publication, it would have been the single best representation of American values.
Hebdo represents the values the entire modern Western civilization was built on. In the Western world, all ideas are up for criticism. And ridicule. No ideas are sacred. Western society does not recognize concepts like sacred or blasphemy.
Hebdo is one of the most liberal publications in the world. It has always sided with immigrants and other minority groups against racists and fascists like the National Front. In fact, National Front is the publication's favorite target.
Where were the so called liberals defending the racists' and fascists' right not to be ridiculed or offended?
I may not see eye to eye with everything that Bill Maher says, but here he was right on the money!
Last night someone had written an article online about how they weren't a rape culture, after years of me trying to talk about my abuses I've suffered on-line and with
others with no acknowledgement or help. Yes they are, and let's establish who the 'they' are since everyone always asks. 'They' are the WASP's who raised children and manipulated their minds that weren't their own, and other disgusting non human things they are hand in hand with. They have horrible eyes, very cold eyes, and they are loveless, but are good at pretending they can be in the public eye. 'They' are about rules, manners, education and conformity, whereas real people are about love and equality and warmth and happiness. 'They' care about materialistic wealth, control, power, property, and are competitive and regimented. People like to have fun and share and enjoy each other's talents. People believe in freedom and free will and free speech, and they don't. 'They' enslave people, blind us, and sexually molested and abused us. 'They' are evil and 'they' refuse to acknowledge, or accept responsibility or allow victims to have a voice and seek true justice. 'They' not only sexualized children, they also made children molest each other. The rape of my life continued into my adulthood, and the last time I was violated I was terrorized, thrown to the streets and quickly realized the police were not going to help. They have done very disgusting things to my body, and I have the proof inside me, but I can't find a doctor human enough to acknowledge or help. 'They' ARE a rape culture, they are perverse and they are cowards who refuse to acknowledge what they are. I could write a list of assaults and abuses done against me by 'them' but there are less and less real people who care, and more of them who don't and prefer to deny or discredit victims. There are shameless idiots on the internet, on UA-cam and even on the news who are making up false claims and sensationalizing abuse they claim to have suffered, which is a slap in the face to real victims whom they refuse to give truth or justice, and have been isolated, terrorized and made to look insane or accused of false crimes. When 'they' say they're not a rape culture, I am convinced they have no ability to be honest, and they are deviants who have no morals, no shame and no integrity. In fact, I think they can't exist without raping or abusing someone or something in their lives, including life itself. They don't acknowledge the rape of people, they don't acknowledge the rape of children and they still haven't acknowledged the rape of nature and this planet. The very fact they deny us a public voice or justice is proof of how 'they' are nothing BUT a rape society and culture.
Charlie Hebdo fired a cartoonist for making anti-Semitic jokes at his publication. No one deserves to die over a cartoon, and according to freedom of speech, no one should be fired for them. Yet, why is it questionable that Muslims ask for the same treatment when it was clear that Charlie fully capable of it?...
The only thing I disagree with him about has to do with responsibility for personal safety. Your actions have consequences. If you are careless and engage is risky behavior. i.e. Dress like a whore and get blacked out drunk at a frat party, then you've got to accept a portion of the responsibility for getting raped. I'm sorry, but that's just common sense. It's like playing in traffic on a dangerous highway. You're begging to get hit by a car. The reality is that there are dangerous evil people in the world that want to hurt or kill you. If you think I'm wrong for saying all of this, ask the rape victim if she's got any future plans to get sloppy drunk in a mini skirt at the upcoming frat party? My guess is that she probably learned a valuable life lesson and won't be doing that ever again.
I like you Bill and I pretty much think like you except for your political allegiance. But they are going to get you for your real liberal way of thinking, and who is going to get you? Not the conservatives but your own kind. Now that's really funny don't you think???
Islam acts like Christianity did a half-millennia ago. And Islam happens to be a half-millennia younger than Christianity. Coincidence?
Some people are saying "Islamophobia Kills"??!? smh do they not see how that statement contradicts itself???!!!
There are consequences to free speech. There is no speech that is free. If someone insults your wife and family and friends, then you would probably want to kick there ass. There's people who love their religion just as much if not more, so you should expect consequences to what you say. Not saying it's right but I am saying it's what you can expect
There's a difference in free speech and spreading utterly false propaganda and hate like Limbaugh does. If it was free speech on Limbaugh's part, why doesn't he just call Obama what he really wants to along with the rest of the Republican party and that word starts with the letter 'N' and ends in 'R'.
I think Bill sometimes confuses censorship and people not liking the content of a message when he denounces all Muslims, especially many Muslims from western, democratic societies.
Violence and censorship are abhorrent in their own insidious ways. Violence should never be an option, and all people from democratic societies should reject censorship with few qualifications.
With that off the table that leaves us with Content and conflating people who don't like Content with those who employ censorship and violence. Western Muslims can totally reject violence and censorship and still take issue with the content of cartoons and Bill Maher's take on religion.