Free speech is an important right, but, ...
-
Not at all. I don't know if you're an American or not, but freedom of speech is our most cherished right. Votaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." That sums up the American attitude towards freedom of speech better than anything I've ever read. Free speech zones suck. Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American.
-
Not at all. I don't know if you're an American or not, but freedom of speech is our most cherished right. Votaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." That sums up the American attitude towards freedom of speech better than anything I've ever read. Free speech zones suck. Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American.
I am an American, and I do cherish the right to freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, and all the others. It seems anti-American though, to try to use the First Ammendment to justify spreading around facist propaganda.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
You have a good point. I guess 60 years seems so long because I am young.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Sixty years is a long time even to us old fogeys. But if we don't remind ourselves of what happened sixty years ago, sixty years from now we will still do the same things. With free speech, the American Nazi Party exists. With free speech, you can counter its message.
-
You have a good point. I guess 60 years seems so long because I am young.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
You have a good point. I guess 60 years seems so long because I am young.
Instead think in life generations (the time it takes for a man to be born and die of natural causes). There are those alive today that lived then, that remember then and they taught their children similar beliefs. Some children may rebel, or reject their parents ways, others accept them and carry them on. Similarly, people of other beliefs have had children who rebelled against their parents and chose to take up the opposite, which might be this. Sixty years is really a very short time, even 100 years is actually a short time. There are those today that are still fighting the civil war in the USA, raised that the north, or the south are to be despised and hated. There are even those who are fighting the indian wars. With each generation, through education, and exposure of the bad parts of these beliefs things decrease. Sweep them under the carpet, or encourage them and they grow. Probably the fewest are still fighting the war of independance, but even that exists still. It takes time to heal a wound, and you have to treat it. Allow it to fester and it grows. But no matter what you do, it still takes time. My ex-boss would never hire a Japanese-descent worker, he had his own term for them. He faught them, and if he still lives, is probably still fighting them. For him WWII never ended, the hatred continued for a lifetime. Blacks and Indians were just mongrels, not worth his time, and Mexicans were the equivalent of slave labor (the only reason he ever paid them was because he was required to do so). He treated everyone like dirt, probably because he could never be sure of how much mongrelization they had been subjected to. I am, as I term it, a heinz 57 American, definately a melting pot example, you name it, it's in me somewhere. Anyhow, hatred never dies because someone tells you to change, if anything it grows festering in the background, growing worse. The daughter of my ex-boss up and left one day, sold her condo without telling her father and moved as far away as she could. His son chose to accept things and stay. Where either are, or what they believe today, I haven't a clue. Their roles could have reversed, or moved farther into extremes. It is impossible to know. If there is a way to hate, a group to hate, it exists somewhere. If there is a way to love, a group to love, it exists also. But in the end, for the ones you talk about, it was onl
-
I am an American, and I do cherish the right to freedom of speech, and the right to bear arms, and all the others. It seems anti-American though, to try to use the First Ammendment to justify spreading around facist propaganda.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
It seems anti-American though, to try to use the First Ammendment to justify spreading around facist propaganda.
The problem is with defining fascism....
Currently, there is no agreement among historians, political scientists or the general population concerning the nature of fascism. Most often, fascism is equated with the far-right, but there are many who argue that the far-right is not entirely fascist or that fascism is not entirely right-wing. **Almost without exception, each contemporary political ideology attempts to define "fascism" as the opposite of its own views.** Thus, the left-wing argues that fascism is right-wing, the right-wing argues that fascism is left-wing, moderates argue that fascism is extremist, and so on. See Fascism and ideology. There is also controversy surrounding the question of what political movements and governments belong to fascism. The most restrictive definitions of fascism include only one government - that of Benito Mussolini in Italy. The broadest definitions, on the other hand, may include every authoritarian state that has ever existed. The only universally agreed upon feature of fascism is that it involves a powerful, dictatorial state that attempts to control most aspects of the life of its citizens. The definition of fascism hinges upon the question of what those aspects of life actually are, how far must the state go in controlling them before becoming fascist, and what else does fascism require besides state control._________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) -
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
Isnt This[^] taking it a little too far?
Here's a test for you. Read the page.... insert various countries, religions, or people who have chosen a different way of life. Are there any that you would then accept the words and agree with them? That is the hardest and truest test any person can take. And if you waver at any group, ask yourself why. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
There have to be prudent limits on speech. No freedom is, or can be, absolute. If a free people decide that some forms of speech go beyond a socially acceptable limit, than that speech should be banned. Frankly, I think that all openly fascist or communist speech should be censored without a bit of concern at all. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
The only speech that should be banned is incitement. If you want to say that you hate black people - fine - make yourself look like an idiot. But if you encourage others to harm black people, then that is when your freedom of speech comes to an end. This is already the limit in most Western countries and is probably about right.
The Rob Blog
Google Talk: robert.caldecott -
Couldn't they get email hosting along with the website? I mean pindick@earthlink.net just isn't as impressive as pindick@americannaziparty.com. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
The changes in the Terrorism Act were made before the 7th of July.
That is odd, I wonder why? I bet conspiracy theorists love to speculate about that.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
That is odd, I wonder why?
It was a hard fought debate in Parliament in February/March. The previous terrorism act was about to expire prematurely because a judge had deemed the previous act illegal and as a result the government would have to release certain people from prison. The bill went from the House of Commons to the House of Lords and back several times over 3 days. The Lords rejecting it each time until eventually a compromise was reached. The bill became an Act just hours before the prisoners had to be released. Some of the prisoners still had to be released, but were fitted with an electronic tagging device rather than being completely free to go. Did the changes to the Terrorism Act prevent July 7th being worse? No, because the people that were involved weren't even on the government's radar. They wouldn't have been in prison anyway. Currently, the police can hold a person for 28 days without trial, or even any evidence. People already have had their lives destroyed by this act. There is a business man who was part of a group who were protesting about father's rights in divorce cases, he was arrested and held under the terrorism act. Information was relayed to the United States about the fact that this was the case and now he cannot enter the United States so he had to shut down his business operations there hurting not only himself but those people in the US that he employed.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
But I think that we already live in a society where free speech is banned all the time - in the name of political correctness. People lose their jobs, for example, for making comments with poorly chosen words that can be interpreted as being racist. Is that a bad thing? Well, we seem to live in a less racist society. Maybe all that political correctness accounts for that. I trust the people to determine what represents socially acceptable speech and what doesn't. In the US, at least, the first amendment was never considered by those who wrote it to provide for absolute freedoms. It was assumed that local communities would continue, as they had always done, to be the final arbiters of what sort of speech was appropriate. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
Not at all. I don't know if you're an American or not, but freedom of speech is our most cherished right. Votaire once said, "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." That sums up the American attitude towards freedom of speech better than anything I've ever read. Free speech zones suck. Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American.
Jim A. Johnson wrote:
Free speech zones suck. Those who would restrict free speech are anti- American
a-f'in-men Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Couldn't they get email hosting along with the website? I mean pindick@earthlink.net just isn't as impressive as pindick@americannaziparty.com. Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So i had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
Couldn't they get email hosting along with the website?
They were probably too stupid to know how.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
But I think that we already live in a society where free speech is banned all the time - in the name of political correctness. People lose their jobs, for example, for making comments with poorly chosen words that can be interpreted as being racist. Is that a bad thing? Well, we seem to live in a less racist society. Maybe all that political correctness accounts for that. I trust the people to determine what represents socially acceptable speech and what doesn't. In the US, at least, the first amendment was never considered by those who wrote it to provide for absolute freedoms. It was assumed that local communities would continue, as they had always done, to be the final arbiters of what sort of speech was appropriate. "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
Stan Shannon wrote:
I trust the people to determine what represents socially acceptable speech and what doesn't. In the US, at least, the first amendment was never considered by those who wrote it to provide for absolute freedoms. It was assumed that local communities would continue, as they had always done, to be the final arbiters of what sort of speech was appropriate.
You have a good point. The first ammendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The 10th ammendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
So, since it is not up to Congress what constitutes as acceptable speech, it must be up to the states and the people.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
That is odd, I wonder why?
It was a hard fought debate in Parliament in February/March. The previous terrorism act was about to expire prematurely because a judge had deemed the previous act illegal and as a result the government would have to release certain people from prison. The bill went from the House of Commons to the House of Lords and back several times over 3 days. The Lords rejecting it each time until eventually a compromise was reached. The bill became an Act just hours before the prisoners had to be released. Some of the prisoners still had to be released, but were fitted with an electronic tagging device rather than being completely free to go. Did the changes to the Terrorism Act prevent July 7th being worse? No, because the people that were involved weren't even on the government's radar. They wouldn't have been in prison anyway. Currently, the police can hold a person for 28 days without trial, or even any evidence. People already have had their lives destroyed by this act. There is a business man who was part of a group who were protesting about father's rights in divorce cases, he was arrested and held under the terrorism act. Information was relayed to the United States about the fact that this was the case and now he cannot enter the United States so he had to shut down his business operations there hurting not only himself but those people in the US that he employed.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
After 9/11 we passed the "Patriot Act". That basically gives the FBI the ability to snoop through anyone's personal information. It also gives them the ability to spy on anyone they want. And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray -- modified at 15:39 Sunday 20th November, 2005
-
After 9/11 we passed the "Patriot Act". That basically gives the FBI the ability to snoop through anyone's personal information. It also gives them the ability to spy on anyone they want. And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray -- modified at 15:39 Sunday 20th November, 2005
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
It also gives them the ability to spy on anyone they want.
That sounds like it is violation of your fourth ammendment.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Doesn't that violate your fifth ammendment?
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Michael Martin wrote:
Couldn't they get email hosting along with the website?
They were probably too stupid to know how.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
It also gives them the ability to spy on anyone they want.
That sounds like it is violation of your fourth ammendment.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Doesn't that violate your fifth ammendment?
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
It violates both the fourth and fifth ammendment. Our government can get by with anything they want if they can convince the pepole that they are safer for it.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
It violates both the fourth and fifth ammendment. Our government can get by with anything they want if they can convince the pepole that they are safer for it.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
That sounds familiar. Tony Blair is like that. He thinks he can push through any laws he likes if he convinces people that they will be safer for it. However, because of the First-past-the-post voting system in use here, he was elected on only 35% of the vote and people are not happy. He is having a tougher and tougher time.
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
-
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
It also gives them the ability to spy on anyone they want.
That sounds like it is violation of your fourth ammendment.
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Pumk1nh3ad wrote:
And, they can hold you as long as they see fit if they decide to arrest you under "Terrorism Charges".
Doesn't that violate your fifth ammendment?
My: Blog | Photos "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in." -- Confucious
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
That sounds like it is violation of your fourth ammendment. Doesn't that violate your fifth ammendment?
Actually, all the ammendments are essentially irrelevant with the patriot act. Although, theoretically, you cannot abridge a constitutional ammendment without another constitutional ammendment... the theory is they have only established clear preference between the three branches of government. The executive branch having senior privledge over all other branches, thus exempt from any limitations when "security of the country" is required. No trial may ever be required, no limit to imprisonment, no rights within prison to religion, or to speak of your capture, or face a jury of your peers, or any jury anywhere. Basically all the ammendments are laid waste by the patriot act. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)