Could it be that we are too free?

[lewdandlicentious]

Brilliantly said Colly, and a valid point very well presented.

Bravo!

 

[Black Tulip]

Colly,

Thank you for answering. I can appreciate what your saying, but I think we come from different points of view. It took me some time to figure out what keeps bothering me though.

But a racist has the right to hate.

That is viewed differently in my country. Like I said, nr. 1 for us is everybody is equal and nobody should be treated differently based on gender, religion, etc. It is the basis of our entire legal system.

And as a free society, you cannot infringe up on that right to speak, without placeing a value judgement on the content.

I think that is exactly what is being done in The Netherlands. Based on the first article, a number of values is anchored in legislation with regard to content. You can not say black people are lazy, gay people are sick in their minds or that jews are crafty bastards (to name a few). I can say the queen is a stupid bitch though, or a certain person is lazy or sick or a crafty bastard.

Your example is very clear and I can understand that and agree with it for the most part. It's better to have unsavory ideas out in the open so you can fight them. Going for the free speech there.

My main concern however is the risk that exercising the right of free speech without boundaries leads to a situation where other basic rights are taken away.

Maybe that is a European trauma stemming from WWII. Since I am part of the post-war generation I could be suffering from a mild case. Maybe it is a Dutch thing. Let's all be equal for god's sake.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

Thank you for answering. I can appreciate what your saying, but I think we come from different points of view. It took me some time to figure out what keeps bothering me though.



That is viewed differently in my country. Like I said, nr. 1 for us is everybody is equal and nobody should be treated differently based on gender, religion, etc. It is the basis of our entire legal system.



I think that is exactly what is being done in The Netherlands. Based on the first article, a number of values is anchored in legislation with regard to content. You can not say black people are lazy, gay people are sick in their minds or that jews are crafty bastards (to name a few). I can say the queen is a stupid bitch though, or a certain person is lazy or sick or a crafty bastard.

Your example is very clear and I can understand that and agree with it for the most part. It's better to have unsavory ideas out in the open so you can fight them. Going for the free speech there.

My main concern however is the risk that exercising the right of free speech without boundaries leads to a situation where other basic rights are taken away.

Maybe that is a European trauma stemming from WWII. Since I am part of the post-war generation I could be suffering from a mild case. Maybe it is a Dutch thing. Let's all be equal for god's sake.

Here's my problem with your countries approach. I can say blacks are lazy. It dosen't make them so. I can say gays are sick. It dosen't make them so. I can say jews are crafty bastards, it dosen't make them so. I can say whatever I will and from a legal stand point there is no repercussion. (I will qualify that statement by saying I think open incitement to violently overthrow the government is still illegal) I'm free to speak.

You can't say those things legally. Your freedom of speech has now become a qualified freedom and currently the strictures upon it are very minor. But there are strictures and there will likely be more. Maybe tomorrow you won't be allowed to say Muslims are all fanatics. And the next day you won't be able to say women are the weaker sex. And that's well and good. But what if the next one is you can no longer say your counselman is a cocksucker who needs to be removed from office? And the next one is you can't say the school system sucks and needs to be revamped? And in ten years you aren't able to criticize the government at all? And in twenty you aren't allowed to discuss sex in public? And in thirty five dessent of any type is prohibited?

I am not saying it will happen, only that it can happen. You have made the decision that freedom of speech may be qualified by content and that means someone, somewhere is making a decision on what content is acceptable and isn't. That someone is likely within the government and so you have basically given government the right to decide exactly who is free to speak and to what extent they are free to speak. You have taken the first step on the slippery slope of allowing government to remove all freedom of speech.

I prefer everyone be totally free to speak. If I find their words objectionable I am not compelled to listen. Louis Farakahn is a black activist who dosen't like white folks. He isn't shy about saying it either. Being white I find a lot of what he says offensive. But I would fight for his right to be offensive long before I would advocate his right to tell me he dosen't like me being abbrogated. I don't have to listen to him. I don't have to listen to the people who listen to him. And I am free to say I don't like him if I choose. (In point of fact I don't dislike him. I find unabashed honesty to be kind of endearing in these days of spin and political double-speak)

Your system may work very well for you, a lot of my position is obviously based up on my being an american and my cultural biase against letting the government get thier mitts on anything. But to my mind what you have is no longer freedom of speech. It's qualified freedom of speech. And the only difference between you and the population of a totalitarian dictatorship is the degree of qualification. And that would really scare me if it happened over here.

-Colly

 

[sanchopanza]

I read an article in The Times this morning (the broadsheet version mind you) that related the story of a woman just cleared of "religiously aggravated assault". Apparently she pulled a head scarf from a muslim students head and the safety pin grazed the neck of said student. Needless to say I believe she was acquitted because she was in front of a jury, if it was up to the judge he would have charged her.

 

[Pure]

In support of the qualified position of Black T.

Canada had two classes of folks they wanted to shut up. Zundel, a Nazi type, prosecuted in Germany. Keegstra a racist teacher.
The first was prosecuted for 'spreading false news' (holocaust denial, a crime in Germany), the other for hate speech.

The 'hate speech' (Keegstra) prosecution was not very successful; the 'false news' (Zundel) one was: BUT in prosecuting the bugger, he and his group got far more publicity than ever before; now to cap it off, Zundel is claiming refugee status to evade being returned to Germany (the land of his ancestry) on grounds he'd face persecution there!

In fact, many Jews question the wisdom of the prosecution, even though they like the principle (as I do).

So, on practical grounds, there are reasons to lean in the direction Colly says; it's just damn hard to draw the lines. Further 'hate crimes' legislation is also tricky: why get 2 years for beating up a gay whom you call a 'faggot', and only 1 for a straight you call a motherfucker?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I read an article in The Times this morning (the broadsheet version mind you) that related the story of a woman just cleared of "religiously aggravated assault". Apparently she pulled a head scarf from a muslim students head and the safety pin grazed the neck of said student. Needless to say I believe she was acquitted because she was in front of a jury, if it was up to the judge he would have charged her.

You are probably right about the jury. That would be described as jury nullification, and sometimes it is a good thing and sometimes it is bad. In this case, I would call it bad unless there is something more to the case that you haven't mentioned.

 

[sanchopanza]

I suppose this is relevant . . . the "British" prisoners released from Guantanemo Bay. They were caught basically red-handed yet are not charged with anything, one of those released claims that he accidentally wondered into Afghanistan while studying in Pakistan and ended up on the battlefield accidentally and accidentally forgot to mention at the time that he was a student and the gun he was using to fire at troops sort of fell into his hands.

So the reason they were released?


EDIT: The article mentioned only that the reason the scarf was pulled off because the colour scheme did not match those of the school approved head scarf colours. That does seem important actually.

 

[minsue]

When I was in elementary school, blackboards were all black and we called them that. When I got into high school, the boards were green but we still called them blackboards. That seemed rather dumb so we started calling them chalkboards, which was more accurate. The concept of PC was unheard of at that time; we were just being accurate.

Ditto, although PC was just beginning to rear it's ugly head as the beast it has turned into when I was in high school.

 

[SlickTony]

She was saying that the use of the word "Girl" was tantamount to racism.

I suppose it depends on who was calling whom "girl." I hear black women call each other girl all the time, but it would sound very different coming from a white person. It's a little like the N-word, and the result of years of black women being called "girl" by white women no matter how old, respectable, educated, etc. they were.

I read somewhere that there is, or was, a lot of mysogyny flying around the French House and Senate, whatever it's called, which I forget--when the women representatives were wpeaking, you heard stuff like, "The gashes now have the floor..."

 

[oggbashan]

EDIT: The article mentioned only that the reason the scarf was pulled off because the colour scheme did not match those of the school approved head scarf colours. That does seem important actually.

The evidence showed that the safety pin had been removed previously. The scarf was just resting on the girl's head.

The girl had been causing trouble for months and she was wearing a headscarf that was not approved. The school had a policy of allowing girls to wear headscarves.

The accusation was malicious and not backed by the facts.

Teachers and other people in authority are at risk from malicious complaints from disruptive pupils.

Whether there had been a jury or not, the teacher should have been acquitted.

This time common sense won.

Og

 

[Black Tulip]

Colly,

I don't see us reaching a like-minded point of view on this one. But I would like to say it's a pleasure disagreeing with you.



Can I buy you a drink?

 

[Pure]

Black T,

It's worth mentioning that there are 'incendiary' situations. If you consider a town where a gay or lesbian was just murdered, and you've got a local preacher saying they are children of the devil, and should be rooted out, you may want a 'hate speech' law on the books.

In practice, I'd lean as far towards Colly's tolerance as possible; If Ms. Tulip wants to sit in a bar in Holland and say 'String up the Mongolians' she should be left alone. The heavy hand of the state can make many situations worse, as I mentioned in my previous posting.

There are also issues of authority and venue. If the mayor of a town is speaking at the town picnic and saying "Blacks are not welcome here." Even if he says, "This is just my personal view", it's more socialy harmful than bigots' conversations at the local bar. I don't think a special law is needed, but I've seen the press get hold of this sort of thing, and (rightfully) exert a lot of pressure, or even secure a resignation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colly,

Thank you for answering. I can appreciate what your saying, but I think we come from different points of view. It took me some time to figure out what keeps bothering me though.



That is viewed differently in my country. Like I said, nr. 1 for us is everybody is equal and nobody should be treated differently based on gender, religion, etc. It is the basis of our entire legal system.



I think that is exactly what is being done in The Netherlands. Based on the first article, a number of values is anchored in legislation with regard to content. You can not say black people are lazy, gay people are sick in their minds or that jews are crafty bastards (to name a few). I can say the queen is a stupid bitch though, or a certain person is lazy or sick or a crafty bastard.

Your example is very clear and I can understand that and agree with it for the most part. It's better to have unsavory ideas out in the open so you can fight them. Going for the free speech there.

My main concern however is the risk that exercising the right of free speech without boundaries leads to a situation where other basic rights are taken away.

Maybe that is a European trauma stemming from WWII. Since I am part of the post-war generation I could be suffering from a mild case. Maybe it is a Dutch thing. Let's all be equal for god's sake.

Like other posters here, I would have severe misgivings with what you call your "first srticle". I think it is extremely "slippery slopish". I have often said words to the effect that all politicians are crooks. Would this be acceptable? What about a politician who says that Democrats are all in favor of high taxes or that Republicans favor what they call welfare for the rich? Would these comments be called hate speech? If so, would they be illegal. In the US, these would be ordinary political comments, fully protected as free speech.

Even hate speech, detestable though it may be, should be protected, except under certain situations which are described elsewhere in this thread. If it is the truth, it should be aired because the truth should never be suppressed. If is is untrue, as it always would be, except under very unusual circumstances, it should be aired so that the fallacies can be exposed. That is what life should be in an open society.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly,

I don't see us reaching a like-minded point of view on this one. But I would like to say it's a pleasure disagreeing with you.



Can I buy you a drink?

I'd be honored

Red wine for me

 

[Black Tulip]

I just took a sip of lovely South African red. Hold out your glass and I'll pour you some.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I just took a sip of lovely South African red. Hold out your glass and I'll pour you some.

Pour away

Be warned though, reds get to my head very quickly

-Colly

 

[Svenskaflicka]

That sounds like a very un-PC comment, Coll! You might hurt an indian's feelings by alluding to his ancestors' habit of scalping people.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That sounds like a very un-PC comment, Coll! You might hurt an indian's feelings by alluding to his ancestors' habit of scalping people.

LOL,

I am totally un PC.

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Agreed, but don't you think it's becoming ludicrous, when we can't say anything against anyone of any colour, without being called racist, when we have facists like Hook-man Hamza, living in our country and verbally defiling everything about us, and he gets away with it. Furthermore, we give him money for it!

Being called a rascist - or a fascist - doesn't limit your freedom to say anything you want.

 

[shereads]

Even hate speech, detestable though it may be, should be protected, except under certain situations which are described elsewhere in this thread.

I agree. I may deviate from the "liberal agenda" ( as if we were organized enough to have an agenda) but I think that defiling a temple or any other public building is a crime of vandalism and should be prosecuted as such. A crime is a crime, regardless of the identity of the victim.

Defining what constitutes "hate speech" invites the government to define which groups are/are not deserving of protection. As an example, George W. Bush failed to support hate crimes legislation in Texas, not because he was rascist but because gays and lesbians were protected and the religious right didn't want them to be.

Thomas Jefferson (one of our smartest adulterer presidents) was a vehement proponent of free speech, and maintained that if truth and lies are given equal opportunity to be aired, the truth will eventually win out.

Of course, he hadn't seen Fox News.



Free speech is meaningless if it doesn't include the right to speech that offends.

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lewdandlicentious
Agreed, but don't you think it's becoming ludicrous, when we can't say anything against anyone of any colour, without being called racist, when we have facists like Hook-man Hamza, living in our country and verbally defiling everything about us, and he gets away with it. Furthermore, we give him money for it!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response by Sher

Being called a rascist - or a fascist - doesn't limit your freedom to say anything you want.


That's true but most persons don't like to have their statements misinterpreted and don't like to be called something they are not, especially if they are being called something they oppose or despise.

Who is Hook-man Hamza? I have read the name on this thread but I have never heard of him before.

 

[shereads]

That's true but most persons don't like to have their statements misinterpreted and don't like to be called something they are not, especially if they are being called something they oppose or despise.

Which raises the question, "So what?"

God help us all when we enact laws just to protect us from hurting each others' feelings. For outright lies and organized attempts to ruin someone's reputation, there are laws against libel and slander. Not always enforceable, but I'd rather see the law err on the side of allowing too much free speech than not quite enough.

I might like a law that protects me from the opinions of others, but I'd hate to lose my right to express my opinion of them.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Reading the various views on this thread, often reminds me of an anonymous poem.

I once posted it here before, and it seems to me, as fitting to do so now, as it was then.


The soldier

It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the student activist, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
It is the soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier, who salutes the flag who serves under the flag and whose coffin is draped by the flag.

Who permits the protester to burn the flag.




Abu Hamza, for those of you not in UK, is a Muslim extremist, (I think that's the correct term) who lives in London. He's lost one hand and has a hook in it's place, hence the name.

He lives off the state, totally. Has done little if any work since he got here, and recites hatred for America and Britain.

He is reviled by all decent people for his views, but still he continues and is allowed to live here, among us, the people he hates, for nothing.

 

[gauchecritic]

Based on the first article, a number of values is anchored in legislation with regard to content. You can not say black people are lazy, gay people are sick in their minds or that jews are crafty bastards (to name a few). I can say the queen is a stupid bitch though, or a certain person is lazy or sick or a crafty bastard.

Unless I'm being too literal here I don't think any of the responses to Tulip's "first article" has noted that it concerns groups of people who have no choice as to the group to which they belong. So there is essentialy no limitation on "free speech" as such. Merely on not being allowed to express, or by expression promote, xenephobia.

She can say a particular black person is lazy, a particular gay is sick in the mind or a particular Jew is a crafty bastard and thereby laying herself open to slander or libel laws. Hence your free speech.

In the end (in any country intent on protecting its boundaries) your speech is as free as the government wants it to be however free you think it is.


A thought on "The soldier". I caught the very end of some ex-sas guy quoting George Orwell
" If people sleep well at night it is because of rough men willing to do violence on their behalf"

Seems to me someone has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Gauche

 

[minsue]

I agree. I may deviate from the "liberal agenda" ( as if we were organized enough to have an agenda)

Wait a minute! You didn't get the agenda? Dammit, sher, you were supposed to take the minutes at the last meeting! Now what are we going to do?