User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 96

  1. #11
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Europe has the experience of fascism the US doesnt, at least not in the unfriendly deaths of thousands in attempted genocide variety, understandably its not an experience anyone wants to repeat and consequently Hitler's the best man to consult and he says that the establishment in Germany could have stopped the rise of Nazism if they had acted swiftly enough before they became a mass movement, he says it in Mein Kampf, its there.

    BTW anyone see The Siege? It was on the other night and while it collapses into a cop action flick story it had some good content about police and security forces responses to criminal and terrorist threats.
    For the sake of argument, such experiences would, as a necessary evil and only so long as necessary, allow for a specified limitation on free speech regarding the Nazis specifically, and not codified in such a way that huge amounts of unrelated and arguably undesirable political and social speech could be suppressed, ether by overt legal action or the threat of the same. And frankly, none of contemporary Western Europe (perhaps particularly within Germany itself) is in so much danger of a fascist take-over of society that such a violation of free speech rights could be justified as a necessary evil.

    And yes, I've watched The Siege, though this was several years ago.

  2. #12
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    ... and consequently Hitler's the best man to consult and he says that the establishment in Germany could have stopped the rise of Nazism if they had acted swiftly enough before they became a mass movement, he says it in Mein Kampf, its there.
    Utter bollocks. Mein Campf was written in 1925-26 - before the nazis came to power. Ergo: how does your statement: "[Hitler] says that the establishment in Germany could have stopped the rise of Nazism if they had acted swiftly enough before they became a mass movement", marry with something that had not happened yet?.

    Presumably he predicted his own rise to power, the corruption of the judiciary and the making of The Siege?
    Last edited by fidelia; 01-30-2010 at 08:13 PM. Reason: insults deleted

  3. #13
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Leon de Winter: Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders - WSJ.com

    I put "Europe" rather than "Netherlands" into the title because similar restrictions on free speech are in place virtually throughout the European continent.

    Any thoughts?
    Maybe the Europeans took Isiah Berlin too seriously.

    Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

  4. #14
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Penda View Post
    When is the last time you've watched Fox News or listened to Michael Savage? Pat Buchanan? They use his same talking points. How Muslims are destroying the west, how immigration should be stopped, how English should be the official language of public discourse, etc. The only view that would be a no-no would be denying Muslim religious freedoms. He was even a guest on Fox News at some point.

    I watch Fox News (and the other cable news networks) fairly regularly, and I have yet to see any mainstream pundits claim that Muslims are "destroying the West." I don't think Pat Buchanan or Michael Savage would be considered mainstream at this point, either. They have their fans, but they are not mainstream even for FNC. Anti-immigration and anti-Muslim extremists are actually far more mainstream in Continental European politics than in American politics.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #15
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    Leon de Winter: Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders - WSJ.com

    I put "Europe" rather than "Netherlands" into the title because similar restrictions on free speech are in place virtually throughout the European continent.

    Any thoughts?
    Global jihad has been declared.

    It takes two forms - mass murder to incite terror and propaganda to undermine our morale.

    And the propaganda is sophisticated enough to use our freedoms against us.

    But they are sophisticated enough to know it is vital to silence our freedom of speech to sap our morale.

  6. #16
    Nerd King Usurper Edgar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    Europe has been extremely pussified by the WW2. They have been walking on eggshells ever since, and didn't really have time to grow back a backbone because US was providing most of the protection during the Cold War.

    They'll get to their breaking point though. France is already starting to make strides against Muslim fundamentalism. However it is not surprising they are the first ones to do so - the French have always been very nationalistic, and view themselves as one of the primary victims of WW2 (hence, less of a guilt trip). But the rest of Europe will follow soon enough.

    Hopefully they won't wait too long - if the Muslim fundamentalist contingent becomes too large, they will have some serious civil unrest on their hands.
    Listen to me, baby, you got to understand, you're old enough to learn the makings of a man.

  7. #17
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Europe has been extremely pussified by the WW2. They have been walking on eggshells ever since, and didn't really have time to grow back a backbone because US was providing most of the protection during the Cold War.
    The censorship laws vary considerably. In Denmark you can put in writing just about anything you like - it has a thriving publishing industry and German neo-nazis can safely say pretty much anything they want. All they need is the price of a rail ticket to Aarhus.

    They'll get to their breaking point though. France is already starting to make strides against Muslim fundamentalism. However it is not surprising they are the first ones to do so...
    You'll find Turkey got their first. If you seriously think headscarfs are a barometer of Islamic fundamentalism, I'd keep it quite. It's an admission you know nothing about Europe or Islam.

    Hopefully they won't wait too long - if the Muslim fundamentalist contingent becomes too large, they will have some serious civil unrest on their hands.
    Well there has been much civil unrest, particularly in France. However, in the main this has been in areas of deprivation - and nothing to do with religion. Where demonstrations with "religious" overtones have taken place in the UK, the headlines have tended to overstate the threat of a few crackpots, armchair warriors and unemployable converts.

    If there is an obvious problem, it is that Europe does not assimilate incomers anywhere near as well as the US does. In that respect the US is light years in front of Europe.

    But back to the free speech. The OP similarly conflates European laws which he sees as "similar" enough that no distinction is required, which is really quite sweet in its naivety.

    As far as UK law is concerned, you can say what ever you want as long as it does not "incite" hatred.

    In the UK the curbs on "free speech" tend to affect no one who has a mind to get round them. Only idiots end up in the dock - which is usually where they planned to be from the outset.

    Lastly, here's an interesting case where a well-know (and now discredited) historian, David Irving, attempted to use UK libel laws to protect his right to free speech, which included holocaust denial, among other goodies:

    Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The court decided that his version of history was a complete concoction and his freedom to spout noxious lies died with his reputation as a historian.

    @ OP - A general point. Where free speech leads to a criminal action should it be curtailed? If I spread a (false) rumour around your neighbourhood that you molest children and you are subsequently attacked by vigilantes, should my freedom be curtailed to spread lies about you? - Even if I believed you to be a child molester (based on unsubstantiated hearsay, for example), would that change matters?

    What precisely is your stand on free speech in cases where words lead to real harm?

  8. #18
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Global jihad has been declared.
    By someone without the authority to declare it.

    I hereby declare the next crusade, a war upon all non christians globally!

    ...Oh wait, I'm not the pope, I'm not allowed to do that. Go figure.

    Seriously, consider the source. A declaration that even their own religion denounces is not a valid declaration to be applied to the whole. Most muslims consider "jihad" to be heretical, more or less.




    As for the book? Well yeah. But it's a religious text, it gets special treatment.

    Look at the bible... it condones murder, rape, homophobia, racism, severely strong sexism, and depicts graphic violence, death, and so on... yet it's recommended reading for CHILDREN.

    The NEWS is on in prime time, and parents watch it with their children IN THE ROOM, when it shows graphic depictions of decapitations, mutiliations, blood, gore, and horrible acts of violence to REAL PEOPLE. ...And then we complain because a video game, with blocky pixels that obviously aren't people, 'die' in a make believe world.

    Yes, technically the quoran should probably be banned by our ridiculous "zomg ban everything conceivably offensive!" mentality we have going on, but it won't be because it's a religious text. At least over in north america it won't likely be so.

    In the netherlands? Well they're not so much banning it as just stating that, yeah, it has some pretty noticible correlations to a work that is banned. I don't see why anyone would be dissuaded from saying "hei these two things say almost the exactly same thing!" when... those two things say... almost exactly the same thing.

    But people consider it an insult.

    Sorry, but the one insulted is usually the one at fault. If I say yeu did something stupid, don't get pissy at me for pointing out yeu did something stupid. The correct way to prevent this from occurring... is to not do stupid stuff anymore.

    But that's how becoming overly-politically-correct leads to the most ridiculous of bans and events occurring.

    Seems like a waste to put it in a courtroom really. The only thing the courtroom will do is let him have wider publicity in his statements, so yeu pretty much just gave him a benefit by putting him on trial for it, rather than harming his point.

    Anyways, people are dumb. Maybe we can just hurry up and kill each other off so noone'll be left to be stupid like this.

  9. #19
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    @ OP - A general point. Where free speech leads to a criminal action should it be curtailed? If I spread a (false) rumour around your neighbourhood that you molest children and you are subsequently attacked by vigilantes, should my freedom be curtailed to spread lies about you? - Even if I believed you to be a child molester (based on unsubstantiated hearsay, for example), would that change matters?
    Lies are not covered under free speech. Defamation, libel and slander are all illegal.

  10. #20
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bananatrombones View Post
    But back to the free speech. The OP similarly conflates European laws which he sees as "similar" enough that no distinction is required, which is really quite sweet in its naivety.

    As far as UK law is concerned, you can say what ever you want as long as it does not "incite" hatred.

    In the UK the curbs on "free speech" tend to affect no one who has a mind to get round them. Only idiots end up in the dock - which is usually where they planned to be from the outset.

    Lastly, here's an interesting case where a well-know (and now discredited) historian, David Irving, attempted to use UK libel laws to protect his right to free speech, which included holocaust denial, among other goodies:

    Irving v Penguin Books and Lipstadt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The court decided that his version of history was a complete concoction and his freedom to spout noxious lies died with his reputation as a historian.

    @ OP - A general point. Where free speech leads to a criminal action should it be curtailed? If I spread a (false) rumour around your neighbourhood that you molest children and you are subsequently attacked by vigilantes, should my freedom be curtailed to spread lies about you? - Even if I believed you to be a child molester (based on unsubstantiated hearsay, for example), would that change matters?

    What precisely is your stand on free speech in cases where words lead to real harm?
    For starters, laws against "inciting hatred" are very much part of what I'm talking about, which have a "freezing" effect on free speech overall and are very easily abused otherwise. Extremely plaintiff-friendly libel laws are a similar problem. In the United States, Irving would never have been in danger of being prosecuted or having his works banned, nor would he have been able to possibly intimidate others from pointing out his holocaust denial through libel laws.

    As for the generalized gray areas you mentioned, I am in general agreement with the malicious intent/reckless disregard standard in place within the United States for ordinary libel, combined with the threat of "imminent harm" standard for situations where violence actually occurs. I also think that only the last of these should be subject to criminal rather than civil charges, though this last point is controversial even within the United States. I know this issue is complicated, but European countries generally have laws that violate what I consider to be minimal standards for free speech protection.

    Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar Threads

  1. Ideologists, Free Speech, and Cartoonists
    By Mole in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-01-2016, 06:35 PM
  2. Free Speech and Poetry
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2012, 04:34 AM
  3. Forget Big Brother: Facebook, Corporations, and the End of Free Speech
    By speculative in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 11:40 AM
  4. Fi and its affect on others
    By Thursday in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-11-2009, 10:10 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO