GTAVercetti 0 #51 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd I maintain that none of us knew them and so none of us knows what they would think about it today, so we should stop with that strain of this thread. Fine. Then here's my next question: Who in the hell are we to say what the laws of Austria should be? rl I am not saying anything about it. In fact, that very reason is why I have not commented on the actual point of this thread.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #52 November 18, 2005 QuoteThen here's my next question: Who in the hell are we to say what the laws of Austria should be? The laws in Austria once permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Mentally Ill, etc. Who are we to say that that is not okay... Someone said it, either you believe in free speech or you don't. Apparently, these countries don't. That's their problem, but we don't have to think it's okay, that's our prerogative.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #53 November 18, 2005 QuoteWould it be great if Shrub could jail those who dared speak ill of the war, or of intelligent design? How do you know who is, or is not, being held in Bush's secret prisons ?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #54 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteThen here's my next question: Who in the hell are we to say what the laws of Austria should be? The laws in Austria once permitted the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Mentally Ill, etc. Who are we to say that that is not okay... Someone said it, either you believe in free speech or you don't. Apparently, these countries don't. That's their problem, but we don't have to think it's okay, that's our prerogative. We have a lot of high ideals. When we start to live up to our own standards of behavior, maybe we can justify our need to dictate how others live. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 November 18, 2005 QuoteSomeone said it, either you believe in free speech or you don't. Apparently, these countries don't. That's their problem, but we don't have to think it's okay, that's our prerogative. Such hypocritical bullshit....there are all kinds of restrictions on your free speech in the US...this holier than though shit is quite laughable.... Just publish a magazine and claim that Michael Jackson likes to get it up the ass from Cheny after George Bush sucked him off and swallowed his cum.. Or publish a magazine about how you would love to rape your neighbours 6 year old daughter and have her done over by the german shephard that belongs to your other neighbour..... Or write a great story about how you would like to kill the President and exactly how you would like to go about doing that.... Or try and tell a person in Texas exactly what a vibrating dildo should be used for..... Or ask a female police officers if she will give you head for $40.... Free speech my ass....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #56 November 18, 2005 QuoteIf someone says, "Americans are fat and lazy!", do Americans freak out? Hell no--for the most part they probably think there is a lot of truth to that statement. If someone says, "American blacks have a hostile and resentful attitude.", they are called all sorts of vile names. Why is that? Personally, I see both statements as mere generalizations. But at the start of your self proclaimed rant you say this: QuoteI think nearly everyone that screams "racist" is either a fool or a hypocrite. Because you said nearly now it is not a generalization? What a joke.... PS....on this board alone there would be quite a few americans who would be pretty pissed off if a non-american came on here claiming americans are fat and lazy.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #57 November 18, 2005 QuoteSuch hypocritical bullshit....there are all kinds of restrictions on your free speech in the US...this holier than though shit is quite laughable.... I suppose where you like is the utopia of free speech then? Why don't YOU do what you asked me to do where you live? Yes, you're right there is some hypocritical bullshit and arrogance, and it's coming from you. Both you and Rhonda should read my post again, then tell me where I said that the US is the model for it. Go ahead. Just because I, or people like me, don't think that it should be a CRIME for this retard to deny the holocaust, doesn't translate to "The US is the BEST! YAY!" Get off your defensive high horse.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #58 November 18, 2005 QuoteBoth you and Rhonda should read my post again, then tell me where I said that the US is the model for it. Go ahead. Just because I, or people like me, don't think that it should be a CRIME for this retard to deny the holocaust, Then, do you think it should it be a crime to claim falsehoods about specific people? Do you think it should be a crime to discuss sexual activities with youg boys and girls? If Free Speech is as incredibly important as many americans claim it to be, then why is dicussing the proper use of a dildo forbidden in the great State of Texas? Why is there not an uprising of support for free speech? It's hypocritical, since you make all these comments about how you believe in free speech and how important it is to you, yet you don't seem to be very active to change it in your own country....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #59 November 18, 2005 QuoteThen, do you think it should it be a crime to claim falsehoods about specific people? Like people running through the streets with signs saying that our president is a murderer? Wait, that seems to be okay. Oh you mean the like in the national enquirer? Wait, that's okay too apparently. WAIT, you mean like accusing someone of a crime that leads to their arrest and prosecution, then having it come out as a lie... then expecting no consequences because you can say what you want? Nope, that's not okay. If I have to explain it... you'll never get it. QuoteDo you think it should be a crime to discuss sexual activities with youg boys and girls? Is it? Where? If you run around advertising that you do this sort of horrible thing, don't be surprised when you get busted doing something that is actually illegal... because people will pay attention and wait for you to fuck up. QuoteIf Free Speech is as incredibly important as many americans claim it to be, then why is dicussing the proper use of a dildo forbidden in the great State of Texas? Why is there not an uprising of support for free speech? I'm in Texas, would you like me to explain dildos to you? I'd like to see the wording on that "infringement" because I'll bet it has to do with publicly advertising them as sex toys, not talking about them. QuoteIt's hypocritical, since you make all these comments about how you believe in free speech and how important it is to you, yet you don't seem to be very active to change it in your own country....... 1. What the hell do you know about what I do? 2. Why should I have to justify anything to you anyway? Keep crying hypocrisy, then realize that YOU are the one being hypocritical. You never did answer my questions about your UNLIMITED free speech in Canada. Thought so.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #60 November 18, 2005 QuoteKeep crying hypocrisy, then realize that YOU are the one being hypocritical. You never did answer my questions about your UNLIMITED free speech in Canada. Thought so. I am not the one proclaiming my love for free speech...as a matter of fact I think speech should be limited in certain cases. QuoteIf I have to explain it... you'll never get it. Slander and Libel are direct infringements on free speech. How come you don't have an issue with those? QuoteI'm in Texas, would you like me to explain dildos to you? I'd like to see the wording on that "infringement" because I'll bet it has to do with publicly advertising them as sex toys, not talking about them. Wow, you're in the state, there is a pretty clear infringement on free speech....yet you as the big proclaimed lover of free speech know nothing about it....but you criticize a country 5,000 miles away for a supposed restriction on free speech......you are right, not hypocritical at all Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #61 November 18, 2005 QuoteSlander and Libel are direct infringements on free speech. How come you don't have an issue with those? slan·der n. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. li·bel n. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. The act of presenting such material to the public. So you think that making false claims that are actually injurious to someone is "free speech"? I don't. Would you also view things like assault and murder to be infringing on my freedoms, if I said I came from a free country? QuoteI am not the one proclaiming my love for free speech...as a matter of fact I think speech should be limited in certain cases. My love for free speech does not dictate that I think that speech that actually causes injury is acceptable. Just like my freedoms stop at my neighbor's nose and all. Is this too complicated? And what do you deem to be acceptable limits on free speech? QuoteWow, you're in the state, there is a pretty clear infringement on free speech....yet you as the big proclaimed lover of free speech know nothing about it....but you criticize a country 5,000 miles away for a supposed restriction on free speech......you are right, not hypocritical at all Yep, it hasn't affected me at all... in fact, I've been to novelty stores where it didn't seem to affect them either. Just FYI, "It's illegal to 'wholesale promote' obscene materials or devices. Texas statute says an obscene device is a simulated sexual organ or an item designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs. The law allows investigators to assume that anyone with six or more of the items is intending to promote them." Not really too much about free speech there... just like drugs and alcohol, right or wrong, it's illegal. For someone who doesn't live here, and thinks that speech should be limited, you seem to care a lot about it. THAT's not hypocritical is it? Let's go with that logic... until you get all your shit sorted in Canada, how about keeping it quiet about any and all other countries' business, mmmkay?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteWould it be great if Shrub could jail those who dared speak ill of the war, or of intelligent design? How do you know who is, or is not, being held in Bush's secret prisons ? Well, if you stop posting, I'll worry a bit more! The population of San Franciscan whiners hasn't decreased lately, either. I wouldn't mind if Bushco made Chris Daly disappear though. It's certainly possible, here and elsewhere in the world. The difference is that Austria is doing it in the open. The counter argument that America doesn't allow everything is a lame one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #63 November 18, 2005 QuoteHave you ever been unemployed for an extended period? Find two people--one who has been jailed and one who has been unable to provide for their basic needs, and ask them to compare their experiences for you. It's enlightening. I have in fact, been unemployed for well over a year in the past. Call it a bad combination of market timing, my wish for a summer off, and the subsequent bombings making open positions very slim. Yet it ended (finally!) with me working a long contract at a gigantic financial institution at a large multiplier of the minimum wage. Meanwhile a friend who wasn't even jailed (beyond the day of arrest) for something that got classified as misdomeanor burglary has been unemployable for the past year. Until the conviction is explunged next year, she's living at home. At least it's an option for her. During my unemployment, I had many great experiences and did a good bit of training. Not an option in jail. Quote The more "free speech" we allow, the worse things seem to get. I have the feeling that "free speech" gives a greater benefit to those who would impede individual freedom rather than to those who want nothing more than to exercise their right to go about their lawful business without interference. How are things worse than in the past? Like say during Vietnam when the police were beating the crap out of those protesting the war? I much prefer the way war protest is handled in this decade, even though I mostly disagree with their message. And I much prefer that the wackos are visible than hiding out fermenting. If they weren't around, people would forget the Holocaust sooner. It's not about are they right in their convictions - dogma can't be the determinant of whether or not someone should be allowed to speak out. While we're all pretty confident the holocaust deniers are full of shit, what if we were wrong? More a concern for an issue that isn't in the 99.99% confirmed. Let's say global warming is a 80% likely truth. If the deniers got their way and we ignore the problem, a billion people (or more?) could die. Isn't that enough reason to make it illegal to deny that global warming exists? Answer - no fucking way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #64 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteHave you ever been unemployed for an extended period? Find two people--one who has been jailed and one who has been unable to provide for their basic needs, and ask them to compare their experiences for you. It's enlightening. During my unemployment, I had many great experiences and did a good bit of training. Not an option in jail. I was unemployable and mostly unemployed for three years for whistleblowing. During that period, my own daughter was in jail for 5 months. I visited her twice a week (the limit) and talked to her every day, sometimes twice a day. In jail, you can't go anywhere because you're locked up. Unemployed, you can't go anywhere because you can't afford to drive. And so on. I won't argue this beyond the point we've gone. Just realize that there are degrees of bad in both situations, and that there are times when not being able to get a job can potentially be worse than being locked up. QuoteQuoteQuoteThe more "free speech" we allow, the worse things seem to get. I have the feeling that "free speech" gives a greater benefit to those who would impede individual freedom rather than to those who want nothing more than to exercise their right to go about their lawful business without interference. How are things worse than in the past? Like say during Vietnam when the police were beating the crap out of those protesting the war? I much prefer the way war protest is handled in this decade, even though I mostly disagree with their message. And I much prefer that the wackos are visible than hiding out fermenting. If they weren't around, people would forget the Holocaust sooner. It's not about are they right in their convictions - dogma can't be the determinant of whether or not someone should be allowed to speak out. While we're all pretty confident the holocaust deniers are full of shit, what if we were wrong? More a concern for an issue that isn't in the 99.99% confirmed. Let's say global warming is a 80% likely truth. If the deniers got their way and we ignore the problem, a billion people (or more?) could die. Isn't that enough reason to make it illegal to deny that global warming exists? Answer - no fucking way. You've gone from denial of a documented historical incident to the denial of a disputed scientific theory. I don't know how to argue your analogy. As to war protest, if protestors today were to use the tactics of SDS and other such groups, the outcome would be the same. Or don't you remember that not all the Vietnam area protestors were hippies and yippies? I don't think allowing wackos to speak is what keeps the memory of the Holocaust alive. And keeping wackos isolated from each other prevents many a bizarre conspiracy. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #65 November 18, 2005 QuoteSo you think that making false claims that are actually injurious to someone is "free speech"? I don't. But you think that false claims injurous to a whole group are free speech? Just so we are clear here....if you hurt one person it is not free speech...if you hurt a group of people, it is free speech....you are right, that makes perfect sense.... QuoteLet's go with that logic... until you get all your shit sorted in Canada, how about keeping it quiet about any and all other countries' business, mmmkay? Funny, you seemed to have no objection to objecting to laws and rules in other countries......On top of that, the US and Canada are slightly closer related than the US and Austria....but to use one of your favourite line...if I have to explain it, you wouldn't get it..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Trent 0 #66 November 18, 2005 QuoteBut you think that false claims injurous to a whole group are free speech? Just so we are clear here....if you hurt one person it is not free speech...if you hurt a group of people, it is free speech....you are right, that makes perfect sense.... Besides being despicable and hurting feelings, is this wack-o talking about how he thinks the holocaust never happened physically, financially, or otherwise hurting anyone? Short of hurting himself by making himself look stupid, what has he done. Offending people isn't enough. But I have a feeling you're arguing just to argue now, so I don't expect you to make a point. QuoteFunny, you seemed to have no objection to objecting to laws and rules in other countries......On top of that, the US and Canada are slightly closer related than the US and Austria....but to use one of your favourite line...if I have to explain it, you wouldn't get it..... Now I know you're just being obtuse. Your point is completely stupid here. I never compared Austria to the US. I compared it to what I thought of free speech. YOU decided for yourself that I was comparing countries. YOU told me to worry about the US before saying anything. YOU are started talking about the US from your own country. Get it? I never said anything about not being able to bitch about foreign countries, that was what YOU brought into it. If you beleive that, then don't bother worrying about my rights to free speech in my own country. I won't limit myself to that... because I can.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Wopelao 0 #67 November 18, 2005 Quote It doesn't pale at all. 6 million is 6 million, even if 30 million Chinese (and perhaps an close number of Russians) died. This isn't a contest anyone wants to participate in. It does, not for the sake of what it means, as 6mill Jewish murdered is no joke, but pales in the amount of what the Japanese did, and yet is strangely forgotten. I have Jewish friends, 2 holocaust survivors, who live near me, friends of my parents. Their stories are of those kind you can never forget. Quote But no how matter bad it was, it's ridiculous that free speech is not permitted on these subjects in those countries. Or that the swastica, used long before the Nazis, is equally forbidden. We hear all these claims about how the US is 19th on the list for free speech rights, yet we seem to allow this sort of dissent. I agree with this point. Just as bad for that ETA guy in Spain who got jailed for "slander". You can not offend their leaders, but yet, it is a favorite sports if it is a US one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites waltappel 1 #68 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf someone says, "Americans are fat and lazy!", do Americans freak out? Hell no--for the most part they probably think there is a lot of truth to that statement. If someone says, "American blacks have a hostile and resentful attitude.", they are called all sorts of vile names. Why is that? Personally, I see both statements as mere generalizations. But at the start of your self proclaimed rant you say this: QuoteI think nearly everyone that screams "racist" is either a fool or a hypocrite. Because you said nearly now it is not a generalization? What a joke.... In my extremely accurate and insightful view of the world, that statement approaches 100% accuracy and is therefore not a generalization. Quote PS....on this board alone there would be quite a few americans who would be pretty pissed off if a non-american came on here claiming americans are fat and lazy.... True, but on this board there are people who get pissed off at nearly anything! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites falxori 0 #69 November 18, 2005 QuoteIt does, not for the sake of what it means, as 6mill Jewish murdered is no joke, but pales in the amount of what the Japanese did, and yet is strangely forgotten. The difference between what the Nazis did (mostly to jews but not only) and the other cases mentioned in this thread is not the numbers. the issue here is not the jews being the victims, it's the fact that the only reason was pure,arbitrary hatred for certain groups of peoples considered to be lesser forms of life. in all of the other cases (as horrific as they may have been) there was war over resources, land or political power and the genocide was a mean and not the goal itself. the holocaust is the first, only (and hopefully the last) case in history in which millions were murdered only for the sake of murdering them. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #70 November 19, 2005 Quoteyou act like things are not that way here, like it is different. Because it is criminal there, doesn't mene you will go to jail. Because it isn't criminal here doesn't mean you can say anything you want. Seventy years ago they killed a bunch of innocent people, their society did, now they overcompensate, at least on paper. One hundred and fifty + years ago we killed and enslaved a bunch of innocents here, our society did, now its bad for us to. Try saying the N-word out loud if you're not black and see how long you have a job. No jail, but you will pay. See? Not that different. Get off your high horse please. There is no slippery slope. Every culture has things for which you will pay a steep price when said. It is just that in our culture, there is no price needed to be paid for Bush sucks or Kerry blows. But there is a price for saying other things. Well ignoring that you are telling me how I'm acting and what I'm riding. ... All cultures have sanctions for behaviors outside the norm. Such is life. When it is encoded into laws and gives the govt authority to arrest you for expressing opinions that do not violate the principle of 'clear and present danger', I think it's gone too far. Good luck with the riding lessons. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #71 November 19, 2005 QuoteI was born in 1958. Blacks were never equal under the law, because there was always some other law somewhere to undermine the rights they supposedly had. And as far as having a right to free speech, well...if no one is taking steps to see that the law is enforced, what good is it? We're drifting here. And getting back to the point, there was no free speech for women, children and people of color at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed. The culture of the time took it for granted that such rights were reserved only to a few--i.e., white men--and regardless of what the words said, the actual practice was different, because the mindset was different. I maintain that the founders would be boggled at what we allow. rl OK, accepting what you say (for the purposes of this discussion only) what standards would you apply to protect those who merely wish to express a view not favored by those in power? You obviously reject 'clear and present danger'. What is your substitution?----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #72 November 19, 2005 QuoteOK, accepting what you say (for the purposes of this discussion only) what standards would you apply to protect those who merely wish to express a view not favored by those in power? You obviously reject 'clear and present danger'. What is your substitution? That's the problem, isn't it. Brandeis wrote: Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) And yet as as far back as 1798, the government has been passing laws that would preclude the people from writing, printing uttering or publishing "any false, scandalous and malicious writing . . . against the government . . . with intent to defame . . . or to excite the hatred of the good people of the United States" and the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that free speech is not acceptable when it pertains to the overthrow of our government. (Brandenburg nothwithtanding, there's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Someone said "slippery slope" earlier, and that's why David Goldberger was my hero for so many years, because it seemed to me that he upheld the former, not the latter, and I couldn't see any other way to go, without hacking away at someone's "freedom." I think what's happened, though, is that we've allowed our goverment to become a protected behemoth that would appall the founders could they only see it; yet on the other hand, we have permitted the erosion of personal freedoms, particularly the right of ordinary people to live peacefully in their own communities, making choices that affect themselves and only themselves. We punish victimless crimes, but we don't punish crime against the many because it's "protected." It's not okay to choose what we do with our own bodies, but it is okay to allow others to assault our minds. It seems to me that the standard should be "you can do whatever you want, as long as it's about you, not about someone else." Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they should be able to dictate the actions of others, and it is those people, under the cover of their "right to free speech" who do more damage and cause more harm than anyone who ever used an illegal drug, purchased the services of a prostitute, had an abortion or took some other action that affected them and only them and not a whole host of others. With all due respect to David Goldberger, I don't think the neo-Nazis should be allowed to march through Skokie. I do think that if a woman chooses to have an abortion and to donate the product of that abortion to stem cell research, it should be her right. But somehow we have reversed things so that personal freedom is not protected and the "rights" of the angry mob are paramount. I'm not going to argue the religion angle, except to say that Protestantism still permeates the thinking behind our government. The founders may have had some ideas about the separation between Church and State, but "in God we [still] trust" nevertheless. There never was a real separation because religion was part and parcel of the everyday mores of those in power at the time. That hasn't changed much. It remains the underlying assumption, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with the religious right. And so we allow yet another infringement on the rights of individuals to live as they would choose because they are "godless." It seems to me that the founders intended "free speech" to prevent the goverment from becoming exactly what it is today. But we continue to have the idea of "free speech" in our heads, so we use it instead as a vehicle to torture individuals for an accident of birth or a way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned, the latter is the true "clear and present danger." rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #73 November 19, 2005 I like what Simon Wiesenthal said: "Not all victims (of the Nazis) were Jews, but all Jews were victims." I suppose that having one's entire culture targeted for extinction can kind of bug you. As for the Holocaust denial stuff...I've been to Dachau. I've been to the Museum of the Diaspora in Tel Aviv. And like everyone else, I've seen the footage of bodies bulldozed by the thousands into mass graves at places like Bergen-Belsen. But the most telling thing I ever saw was a photograph of a storeroom piled to the ceiling with eyeglasses. Someone once asked me if the Holocaust took place, and if it really was six million Jews. I said that given the number of camps, and the numbers of bodies found, it easily ran into the millions, so if six million is an over-inflated figure, it isn't by much, and in the end, it doesn't really matter whether there were 5,999,999 or 6,000,001, or any other number one might choose to banter. Part of the problem is that most human beings cannot or will not comprehend evil, especially when it is organized evil ala Hitler or Stalin. "The true strength of the vampire is that no one will believe in him." - Prof Van Helsing in Bram Stoker's "Dracula". This pointless debate reminds me of some of the arguments that have taken place on this forum over Truman's decision to nuke Japan. I still believe that decision was the right one, because it forced a hasty end to the war, and many many more lives were saved by that decision than were taken by it. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jenfly00 0 #74 November 19, 2005 Quotethere's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Ahhh, there is all the difference in the world when it comes to governmental sanctions for free expression of iteas, thoughts and opinions. I waded through the injustice of victimless vs crimes against persons and I still don't see your answer (unless you are applying the 'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine). If I understand correctly from gleaning out the bits that addressed my question, you don't reject 'clear and present danger' outright but expand it's definition to the point of being usless as a protection for a free people. Absent the hurdle of imminent danger resulting from speech, you just opened the wide cargo doors for a government to crush any speech it does not like. When I hear the Klan, Aryan Nation or other hate groups spreading their disease under the First Ammendment, it makes my skin crawl, but to loosen that standard invite worse, I think.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites RhondaLea 4 #75 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuotethere's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Ahhh, there is all the difference in the world when it comes to governmental sanctions for free expression of iteas, thoughts and opinions. I waded through the injustice of victimless vs crimes against persons and I still don't see your answer (unless you are applying the 'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine). If I understand correctly from gleaning out the bits that addressed my question, you don't reject 'clear and present danger' outright but expand it's definition to the point of being usless as a protection for a free people. Absent the hurdle of imminent danger resulting from speech, you just opened the wide cargo doors for a government to crush any speech it does not like. When I hear the Klan, Aryan Nation or other hate groups spreading their disease under the First Ammendment, it makes my skin crawl, but to loosen that standard invite worse, I think. I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, but I honestly do not understand your post. Well, I do understand the last paragraph (although not as having any connection to the rest of your post), although I disagree with your conclusion. And I also understand that you disagree that there's no difference between "advocacy" and "incitement" but to me, distinguishing the two is legal weasling. Refusing to allow the latter may prevent an impromptu riot, but allowing the former just paves the way for a more organized and potentially more dangerous chain of events.) The argument I can see against my post is not the one you've made. I'm not really sure what your argument is, because I cannot follow your premises to a specific conclusion, and certainly not to the conclusion you reached. I'm willing to discuss it, but I don't know where to start, because I don't know what it means. It may be that you're making perfect sense, but I simply don't understand. rl P.S. The crack about the "'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine" pissed me off. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine. I don't think I was personally insulting in my comments to you, and if I was, I apologize. But this was just unnecessary, and it did not relate at all to anything that I wrote. You want to debate, fine; you want to engage in sarcastic repartee, you'll have to do it with someone else. I'm just not up to it right now. Try me again next week.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
SkyDekker 1,465 #65 November 18, 2005 QuoteSo you think that making false claims that are actually injurious to someone is "free speech"? I don't. But you think that false claims injurous to a whole group are free speech? Just so we are clear here....if you hurt one person it is not free speech...if you hurt a group of people, it is free speech....you are right, that makes perfect sense.... QuoteLet's go with that logic... until you get all your shit sorted in Canada, how about keeping it quiet about any and all other countries' business, mmmkay? Funny, you seemed to have no objection to objecting to laws and rules in other countries......On top of that, the US and Canada are slightly closer related than the US and Austria....but to use one of your favourite line...if I have to explain it, you wouldn't get it..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #66 November 18, 2005 QuoteBut you think that false claims injurous to a whole group are free speech? Just so we are clear here....if you hurt one person it is not free speech...if you hurt a group of people, it is free speech....you are right, that makes perfect sense.... Besides being despicable and hurting feelings, is this wack-o talking about how he thinks the holocaust never happened physically, financially, or otherwise hurting anyone? Short of hurting himself by making himself look stupid, what has he done. Offending people isn't enough. But I have a feeling you're arguing just to argue now, so I don't expect you to make a point. QuoteFunny, you seemed to have no objection to objecting to laws and rules in other countries......On top of that, the US and Canada are slightly closer related than the US and Austria....but to use one of your favourite line...if I have to explain it, you wouldn't get it..... Now I know you're just being obtuse. Your point is completely stupid here. I never compared Austria to the US. I compared it to what I thought of free speech. YOU decided for yourself that I was comparing countries. YOU told me to worry about the US before saying anything. YOU are started talking about the US from your own country. Get it? I never said anything about not being able to bitch about foreign countries, that was what YOU brought into it. If you beleive that, then don't bother worrying about my rights to free speech in my own country. I won't limit myself to that... because I can.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wopelao 0 #67 November 18, 2005 Quote It doesn't pale at all. 6 million is 6 million, even if 30 million Chinese (and perhaps an close number of Russians) died. This isn't a contest anyone wants to participate in. It does, not for the sake of what it means, as 6mill Jewish murdered is no joke, but pales in the amount of what the Japanese did, and yet is strangely forgotten. I have Jewish friends, 2 holocaust survivors, who live near me, friends of my parents. Their stories are of those kind you can never forget. Quote But no how matter bad it was, it's ridiculous that free speech is not permitted on these subjects in those countries. Or that the swastica, used long before the Nazis, is equally forbidden. We hear all these claims about how the US is 19th on the list for free speech rights, yet we seem to allow this sort of dissent. I agree with this point. Just as bad for that ETA guy in Spain who got jailed for "slander". You can not offend their leaders, but yet, it is a favorite sports if it is a US one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #68 November 18, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf someone says, "Americans are fat and lazy!", do Americans freak out? Hell no--for the most part they probably think there is a lot of truth to that statement. If someone says, "American blacks have a hostile and resentful attitude.", they are called all sorts of vile names. Why is that? Personally, I see both statements as mere generalizations. But at the start of your self proclaimed rant you say this: QuoteI think nearly everyone that screams "racist" is either a fool or a hypocrite. Because you said nearly now it is not a generalization? What a joke.... In my extremely accurate and insightful view of the world, that statement approaches 100% accuracy and is therefore not a generalization. Quote PS....on this board alone there would be quite a few americans who would be pretty pissed off if a non-american came on here claiming americans are fat and lazy.... True, but on this board there are people who get pissed off at nearly anything! Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
falxori 0 #69 November 18, 2005 QuoteIt does, not for the sake of what it means, as 6mill Jewish murdered is no joke, but pales in the amount of what the Japanese did, and yet is strangely forgotten. The difference between what the Nazis did (mostly to jews but not only) and the other cases mentioned in this thread is not the numbers. the issue here is not the jews being the victims, it's the fact that the only reason was pure,arbitrary hatred for certain groups of peoples considered to be lesser forms of life. in all of the other cases (as horrific as they may have been) there was war over resources, land or political power and the genocide was a mean and not the goal itself. the holocaust is the first, only (and hopefully the last) case in history in which millions were murdered only for the sake of murdering them. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #70 November 19, 2005 Quoteyou act like things are not that way here, like it is different. Because it is criminal there, doesn't mene you will go to jail. Because it isn't criminal here doesn't mean you can say anything you want. Seventy years ago they killed a bunch of innocent people, their society did, now they overcompensate, at least on paper. One hundred and fifty + years ago we killed and enslaved a bunch of innocents here, our society did, now its bad for us to. Try saying the N-word out loud if you're not black and see how long you have a job. No jail, but you will pay. See? Not that different. Get off your high horse please. There is no slippery slope. Every culture has things for which you will pay a steep price when said. It is just that in our culture, there is no price needed to be paid for Bush sucks or Kerry blows. But there is a price for saying other things. Well ignoring that you are telling me how I'm acting and what I'm riding. ... All cultures have sanctions for behaviors outside the norm. Such is life. When it is encoded into laws and gives the govt authority to arrest you for expressing opinions that do not violate the principle of 'clear and present danger', I think it's gone too far. Good luck with the riding lessons. ----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #71 November 19, 2005 QuoteI was born in 1958. Blacks were never equal under the law, because there was always some other law somewhere to undermine the rights they supposedly had. And as far as having a right to free speech, well...if no one is taking steps to see that the law is enforced, what good is it? We're drifting here. And getting back to the point, there was no free speech for women, children and people of color at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted and passed. The culture of the time took it for granted that such rights were reserved only to a few--i.e., white men--and regardless of what the words said, the actual practice was different, because the mindset was different. I maintain that the founders would be boggled at what we allow. rl OK, accepting what you say (for the purposes of this discussion only) what standards would you apply to protect those who merely wish to express a view not favored by those in power? You obviously reject 'clear and present danger'. What is your substitution?----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #72 November 19, 2005 QuoteOK, accepting what you say (for the purposes of this discussion only) what standards would you apply to protect those who merely wish to express a view not favored by those in power? You obviously reject 'clear and present danger'. What is your substitution? That's the problem, isn't it. Brandeis wrote: Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, selfreliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) And yet as as far back as 1798, the government has been passing laws that would preclude the people from writing, printing uttering or publishing "any false, scandalous and malicious writing . . . against the government . . . with intent to defame . . . or to excite the hatred of the good people of the United States" and the Supreme Court has upheld the idea that free speech is not acceptable when it pertains to the overthrow of our government. (Brandenburg nothwithtanding, there's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Someone said "slippery slope" earlier, and that's why David Goldberger was my hero for so many years, because it seemed to me that he upheld the former, not the latter, and I couldn't see any other way to go, without hacking away at someone's "freedom." I think what's happened, though, is that we've allowed our goverment to become a protected behemoth that would appall the founders could they only see it; yet on the other hand, we have permitted the erosion of personal freedoms, particularly the right of ordinary people to live peacefully in their own communities, making choices that affect themselves and only themselves. We punish victimless crimes, but we don't punish crime against the many because it's "protected." It's not okay to choose what we do with our own bodies, but it is okay to allow others to assault our minds. It seems to me that the standard should be "you can do whatever you want, as long as it's about you, not about someone else." Unfortunately, there are those who believe that they should be able to dictate the actions of others, and it is those people, under the cover of their "right to free speech" who do more damage and cause more harm than anyone who ever used an illegal drug, purchased the services of a prostitute, had an abortion or took some other action that affected them and only them and not a whole host of others. With all due respect to David Goldberger, I don't think the neo-Nazis should be allowed to march through Skokie. I do think that if a woman chooses to have an abortion and to donate the product of that abortion to stem cell research, it should be her right. But somehow we have reversed things so that personal freedom is not protected and the "rights" of the angry mob are paramount. I'm not going to argue the religion angle, except to say that Protestantism still permeates the thinking behind our government. The founders may have had some ideas about the separation between Church and State, but "in God we [still] trust" nevertheless. There never was a real separation because religion was part and parcel of the everyday mores of those in power at the time. That hasn't changed much. It remains the underlying assumption, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in with the religious right. And so we allow yet another infringement on the rights of individuals to live as they would choose because they are "godless." It seems to me that the founders intended "free speech" to prevent the goverment from becoming exactly what it is today. But we continue to have the idea of "free speech" in our heads, so we use it instead as a vehicle to torture individuals for an accident of birth or a way of thinking. As far as I'm concerned, the latter is the true "clear and present danger." rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #73 November 19, 2005 I like what Simon Wiesenthal said: "Not all victims (of the Nazis) were Jews, but all Jews were victims." I suppose that having one's entire culture targeted for extinction can kind of bug you. As for the Holocaust denial stuff...I've been to Dachau. I've been to the Museum of the Diaspora in Tel Aviv. And like everyone else, I've seen the footage of bodies bulldozed by the thousands into mass graves at places like Bergen-Belsen. But the most telling thing I ever saw was a photograph of a storeroom piled to the ceiling with eyeglasses. Someone once asked me if the Holocaust took place, and if it really was six million Jews. I said that given the number of camps, and the numbers of bodies found, it easily ran into the millions, so if six million is an over-inflated figure, it isn't by much, and in the end, it doesn't really matter whether there were 5,999,999 or 6,000,001, or any other number one might choose to banter. Part of the problem is that most human beings cannot or will not comprehend evil, especially when it is organized evil ala Hitler or Stalin. "The true strength of the vampire is that no one will believe in him." - Prof Van Helsing in Bram Stoker's "Dracula". This pointless debate reminds me of some of the arguments that have taken place on this forum over Truman's decision to nuke Japan. I still believe that decision was the right one, because it forced a hasty end to the war, and many many more lives were saved by that decision than were taken by it. mh ."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jenfly00 0 #74 November 19, 2005 Quotethere's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Ahhh, there is all the difference in the world when it comes to governmental sanctions for free expression of iteas, thoughts and opinions. I waded through the injustice of victimless vs crimes against persons and I still don't see your answer (unless you are applying the 'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine). If I understand correctly from gleaning out the bits that addressed my question, you don't reject 'clear and present danger' outright but expand it's definition to the point of being usless as a protection for a free people. Absent the hurdle of imminent danger resulting from speech, you just opened the wide cargo doors for a government to crush any speech it does not like. When I hear the Klan, Aryan Nation or other hate groups spreading their disease under the First Ammendment, it makes my skin crawl, but to loosen that standard invite worse, I think.----------------------- "O brave new world that has such people in it". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #75 November 19, 2005 QuoteQuotethere's not really that much difference between "advocacy" and "incitement." Really.) Ahhh, there is all the difference in the world when it comes to governmental sanctions for free expression of iteas, thoughts and opinions. I waded through the injustice of victimless vs crimes against persons and I still don't see your answer (unless you are applying the 'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine). If I understand correctly from gleaning out the bits that addressed my question, you don't reject 'clear and present danger' outright but expand it's definition to the point of being usless as a protection for a free people. Absent the hurdle of imminent danger resulting from speech, you just opened the wide cargo doors for a government to crush any speech it does not like. When I hear the Klan, Aryan Nation or other hate groups spreading their disease under the First Ammendment, it makes my skin crawl, but to loosen that standard invite worse, I think. I'm not trying to be intentionally offensive, but I honestly do not understand your post. Well, I do understand the last paragraph (although not as having any connection to the rest of your post), although I disagree with your conclusion. And I also understand that you disagree that there's no difference between "advocacy" and "incitement" but to me, distinguishing the two is legal weasling. Refusing to allow the latter may prevent an impromptu riot, but allowing the former just paves the way for a more organized and potentially more dangerous chain of events.) The argument I can see against my post is not the one you've made. I'm not really sure what your argument is, because I cannot follow your premises to a specific conclusion, and certainly not to the conclusion you reached. I'm willing to discuss it, but I don't know where to start, because I don't know what it means. It may be that you're making perfect sense, but I simply don't understand. rl P.S. The crack about the "'pisses off Rhonda Lea' doctrine" pissed me off. If you want to discuss the issue, that's fine. I don't think I was personally insulting in my comments to you, and if I was, I apologize. But this was just unnecessary, and it did not relate at all to anything that I wrote. You want to debate, fine; you want to engage in sarcastic repartee, you'll have to do it with someone else. I'm just not up to it right now. Try me again next week.If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
