Link? Cite? Evidence? Or are you just making an assumption that you have no proof of?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**
What is it that’s so questionable? The point is that the government here cannot even make a law that abridges your right to express political thought. Unlike in Belgium, the government here can’t tell you that you must tow the party line on the Holocaust. It seems to me that we have more freedom of speech here than you have in Belgium.
Zev Steinhardt
I don’t think any of my posts were premature, and I’m prejudiced, then so are you (and so is anyone who has an opinion). If you care to define what you mean by “prejudiced”, I’ll reconsider.
Frankly, I simply don’t believe you would defend a pro-war activist, because you keep injecting your own beliefs about the Iraq war.
Well, “critique” strikes me as an accurate word (feel free to suggest another), while “immature” and “silly” do not. Besides, claiming that you’re more mature than us doesn’t make you correct. And claiming it over and over and over doesn’t help, either.
As a friendly word of advice, I suggest you never describe yourself, even jokingly, as “a complete idiot” when you are trying to make a rational argument. It doesn’t help.
Darn. I meant “and if I’m prejudiced, then so are you.”
Even us native speakers screw up now and then.
Interesting… I’m almost tempted to see myself as some kind of “threat” 
Ah…Well it can be in your society. It is not how I see it.
And by the way: Being Arab… If I want to be a “martyr” then I’ll change my belief in some lunatic radical false interpretation and blow myself up in the middle of some “enemy” crowd as is now the latest fashion. But I don’t see myself doing that before I become completely senile. And since senility isn’t exactly a birthgift in my family… Not much risk of me becoming a “martyr” ever.
Seems to me that background of mine isn’t exactly all that irrelevant… Since you used the fact that I’m not a US’er to describe me as a person I’m not and since others do the same (= they use it to twist the discussion with irrelevant addings to it).
What you call “a minor hurdle”…I already pointed out to the poor members who try to disfigure my posts, that my Aldebaran’s New English Dictionary Style can offer the readers a real intellectual challenge…
I’m already thinking about writing a translating dictionary. But since for that I first must study English and on the way beat twinbrother Dyslex into a coma…I’m afraid that project wont get realized by tomorrow.
As compensation you can get planeloads of aspirine for free it you need to.
Salaam. A
Munch,
I find it questionable enough that US citizens are locked up for months without even being charged for anything, just because they are of Arab origin.
And I find it questionable that the Flag Waving is that much promoted that people who don’t wave the flag are labelled as traitors.
I find is also questionable that burning a US flag would be seen as such, by the way.
But as you should know by now, we aren’t debating here the “government only”… we are debating the whole concept of “freedom of speech” in the US society.
Which is very quesitonable indeed when it comes to ciritcize the present government and its actions.
Zev S.
Maybe you could go to the official website of Belgium and get informed.
Salaam. A
Why? I took your word on the state of affairs in Belgium.
In any event, it’s just a red herring anyway. You indicated that there is no (or limited) freedom of speech here in the US and have failed to show how that is so. The only evidence that you gave to support your position was the article by Mr. Robbins, which has been shown to you to be not relevant to the issue of free speech as it is understood in the US because he is not being prevented from speaking by the government.
Zev Steinhardt
Bryan,
I usely describe myself as someone with one single working braincell.
Now I have a question for the members in general who post here:
How come you people have never heard of the word “humour” and “self ciritcism with a little sarcastic note”?
Sometimes when I post on some Muslim message board, the weight of their seriousness and taking themselves for The Wisdom Of the World is not only extremely boring, but is making me shut down that place before I feel myself heading towards a very severe depression. I see the same happening overhere.
Can you people actually even smile or is that an extremety not allowed because too tiring?
Debate can still be interesting debate when you actually have some fun in debating.
Salaam. A
Zev,
No you didn’t take my posts for what they were meant to be, but for what you like to make of it.
And as is also remarked by others then me: the question is not if you have a law that gives you the right of free speech. The question is how this shows itself to be in practice.
Let’s take the example of the “embedded” journalists during the invasion of Iraq. You call that free speech and freedom of reporting?? Well I call that laughable and a violation of everything that is meant by “free press and free speech”.
Salaam. A
So far, all I have gathered from this debate, is that the OP has not proven any of his alleged allegations, that there is any form for official censorship in the USA .
People are free to criticize whatever they please, and other people in turn, are free to criticize those people back. Seems like a fair deal to me.
The only thing I have learned from this debate so far, is that if one goes to Belgium and verbally insults Aldebaran, he will resort to physical violence.
:smack:
Sure… That is why I post on message boards. You can’t come through the screen to beat the other into the hospital.
It’s some sort of self protectionism…
Salaam. A
**
So, in practice, can you go to jail (or be fined, or have any other action taken against you by the government) in Belgium for espousing Holocaust denial ideas? Yes or no please.
No, and that’s a bad example to pick.
First of all, the reporting didn’t occur in the United States. Last time I checked the protections of the Constitution only applied in the US. If I go to a place that has outlawed Judaism, I can’t turn to the first amendment for relief.
Secondly, that was a military setting. In military settings one often does give up some of his basic rights. Soldiers, for example, do not have a right to freedom of speech if ordered not to speak on a topic by a superior. Likewise, a soldier often gives up his right to a trial by jury in favor of a court martial.
Lastly, the government is not under any obligation to tell the press everything it knows. The CIA is not required to call up the NY Times and let them know national secrets. If the Times finds out on their own, the Feds can’t stop them from reporting it, but they certainly aren’t obligated to tell the press everything. Same thing with the embedded reporters in Iraq.
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, you are a threat, in a way, because I believe that if your version of “freedom of speech” became the norm, it would be a lot less “free” than I’d like.
That’s only one definition of the word “martyr.”: “a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle”. The word also has a negative secondary meaning: “a person who uses a claim of suffering in order to generate sympathy.” This is what you are doing. You have claimed that I am trying to “silence” you, so you can try to get sympathy. This claim is false, since I am not trying to silence you.
Well, anyone who thinks your views are less valid because you are not an American is wrong. Your views happen to be less valid becuase they are illogical and ill-conceived, but this is irrelevant to your citizenship.
Your sense of humour isn’t very funny, either.
That’s another bad tactic, claiming you were only being humourous when others were being serious. Yes, we know what humour and sarcasm are, but it looks like some of us take the subject of freedom of speech more seriously than you do. That makes me glad, because I think you take the subject of freedom of speech very lightly.
And if you’re losing an argument on rational grounds, please don’t try to salvage a draw by claiming you were only joking and the rest of us are being too serious. It’s a waste of time.
I have an excellent sense of humour. If you go to other threads on this board, you’ll find hundreds of people with excellent senses of humour. Maybe you’re just not very amusing to us. I am personally very unamused by people who think I should stifle my opinions when a celebrity talks, or that anyone other than me can choose what movies I see or don’t see.
The contents of Muslim message boards are surely irrelevant to this thread, but I see you mention them just as an excuse to show us how much you are suffering with “very severe despression”. That’s you being a “martyr” again.
I don’t believe your suffering is real, and even if it was real, I don’t believe it justifies weakening freedom of speech in the way you suggest.
Bryan,
Sorry, but I give up on you. You can keep on ranting from now on as you like with your I’m The Most Serious Most Informed From This Message Board.
No question you will get any response from me though. I don’t waist my time on people like you. So, Goodbye and God bless.
Salaam. A
I’ve never claimed to be the most informed. You’re wrong about that and about me ranting. Ranting implies I’ve given up trying to form a coherent argument. Can you point out a moment when I’ve actually ranted on this thread?
I think you’re finally admitting that you’ve lost the argument and are looking for an escape. One attempt is to claim that you were only joking and that we are taking this subject way too seriously. Another attempt is accusing your opponents of ranting. A third is that your opponents are too immature to debate the subject seriously.
None of these approaches work very well, do they?
Every citizen can use the right to look at such publication as a personal insult and as a violation of the anti-discrimination law.
Why on earth do you seem so obsessed with the idea that “the government” is “The Law”? The government can vote laws after the legal procedure required to do this. The government however isn’t the juridical system.
I don’t now why you keep going on as if this is the case when I explained this already several times.
And about the embedded journalists:
I’m sorry, but your argument that they weren’t “in the USA” holds no ground at all. The “embedded” journalists were picked out carefully by the US and couldn’t transmit to the outside world what they wanted because they had to work under direct US control. That was why this whole system was implied to begin with.
Independent = non embedded journalists most of the time couldn’t even get to the places where war journalists want to be. They were intimidated, held on the frontier, shot at, killed… You should read some non US papers and their reports about this.
Salaam. A
Oh yes, that´s what the police does around here too. I am sorry, if that thing came out unclear.
The counter demonstration I am thinking about took place in the same city at the same time, but the two demonstrations didn´t mix, as that would definitely cause a bloody riot.
Zev, I don´t know about Belgium, but I think you would get into serious legal trouble in Germany, if you would claim the holocaust never happened.
Then again, in Texas you can get into trouble for selling adult comic books to adults (Cite),
so I don´t think it´s very surefire indicator for a denial of freedom of speech. It just shows that in different countries different things are taboo topics.
Oh forgot: The reporting of the US journalists did occur in the USA. Or are you saying they wrote for non US media and reported live for non US TV channels, screaming idiocies like “WE got them”. or “WE are looking at them” or whatever that made it cristal clear that they had lost every sense of impartiality, if that was ever their goal.
No real journalist identifies himself with one of the sides he is reporting about.
Salaam. A
Thanks Munch, that’s the nicest thing anybody has ever said to me.In response to Xtisme, I would say that freedom of speech is alive and well in America. I think the system works so well and we are so sensitive to this issue, that as soon as there is the slightest deviation (teachers suspended, etc.), it becomes a major issue. I don’t think the government has to step in and do anything, and anything they did do would probably be challenged as prior restraint.
The teachers being suspended doesn’t bother me that much because they were only displaying one side. No matter what their private beliefs, teachers should teach critical thought and analysis of all sides of an issue.
What troubles me is the self-censorship of the media and the general impression that this is less tolerance for dissent in America since 9-11. I say impression because I think some of us maybe are a little paranoid. For example, I was in the middle of reading “How to Overthrow the Government” by Arianna Huffington when I went on a plane trip. I was going to bring the book to read on the plane, then I started thinking…This was my first plane trip since 9-11 and I had heard rumors of a TSA no-fly list and activists being prevented from flying and people being taken off of planes because of questionable reading material. I had been very anti-Bush on the internet and thought I might be on a list. So I chickened out and left the book at home. In retrospect, it was silly. But then on the McCarthy watch website, there is a story of a guy who was questioned by the FBI because somebody turned him in for reading something about weapons of mass destruction.
There is the guy from Oregon who is serving 33 months for making a joke to a bartender about a burning bush. Did the Secret Service overreact? Probably, although he sounds like a weird person.
There is the overall impression that democratic pluralism is losing the battle to a sort of narrow right wing groupthink in America. Bill Maher says that the 911 hijackers were not cowards, so the show’s advertisers threaten to pull their ads, and Maher’s show gets cancelled. There was a letter writing campaign against the advertisers, but I don’t think it had much effect. Maher’s show was gone but Fedex is still in business. Maher has a new show now so the censorship wasn’t permanent. I sometimes think Maher is a jerk, but I enjoyed watching PI because of the variety of voices and vigor of the debate.
Same thing with Donahue. Kind of a goofball, but his show stimulated debate. He was replaced by Scarborough, another Oreilly/Hannity/Limbaugh clone who shouts down his own guests when he doesn’t like what they are saying. Scarborough was a Republican congressman from Florida when his intern was found dead in his office. Around the same time as Condit’s scandal, but hardly any news about Scarborough. Then Scarborough was a guest on the Imus show, and Imus said, “You are funny. You told me you were having sex with your intern so you had to kill her.” You would think that if we really did have a liberal media, they would have gone after Scarborough instead of Condit.
There are all the people who criticized Bush and apologized later due to pressure or perceived pressure. I just wish one of them had stuck to his guns and said, “Yes Bush really is a lying asshole and a moron to boot.”
I am sick of all the right wing lies that get echoed through the media. Al Gore never said the invented the internet. Cynthia McKinney never said that Bush was behind 911, she just said there needed to be an investigation of 911.
I was at Borders last week and looked for Al Franken’s new book and Joe Conason’s book Big Lies. There weren’t displayed in front with the new books, there were in the back shelves. Then I saw this display, “Politics and You.” There were 3 pro-Bush books, Ann Coulter’s books Treason and Slander, and a couple neutral history books. I asked the lady at the help desk, why was the display so obviously biased, and she didn’t know but she would check with the manager. I had the feeling that nothing would be done, so while nobody was looking I added Franken’s and Conason’s books to the display. Woohoo! Direct ACtion!
I am rambling on and on here and I know much of this has little to do with constitutionally protected speech. So flame me if you like, but I think this country is slouching toward fascism, with the full cooperation of many of the people, and a military-industrial-media complex that is fully in cahoots with a republican party that will stop at nothing to reach its goal of complete destruction of the democratic party. I don’t think we can do much to stop it.