USA Unfreedom of Speach

[bizzwire]

Yes, I am a linguist being Arabist. And next I’m also historian. Of both Islamic and European history. Is that so weird?

No. Not so much wierd as pompous. And yet…affected.
Bizz

[Aldebaran]

So if people ask what your “occupation” is, as was aked on this board, and you tell them you are

“pompous”

and

“affected”

OK. I presume you have weird interpretations of other things also.

For your information: None of this is my “occupation” in the sense that I use it to gain a living. It is what I studied.

Now please be so kind to give me your interpretation of this, I’m always fascinated by new discoveries in no matter which field.

Salaam. A

[Aldebaran]

So if people ask what your “occupation” is, as I was asked on this board more then once, and you answer them,l them you are

“pompous”

and

“affected”

OK. I presume you have weird interpretations of other things also.

For your information: None of this is my “occupation” in the sense that I use it to gain a living. It is what I studied.

Now please be so kind to give me your interpretation of this, I’m always fascinated by new discoveries in no matter which field.

Salaam. A

[bizzwire]

well, when you preface your response with “As an (arabist,linguist,historian”, it is assumed that you do so to establish your authority on the matter. It is not unusual to make the assumption that such authority must come from many years of practice and/or study. In other words, it is implied that such is your occupation. It’s a subtle nuance that only a…a…I don’t know…a…linquist could appreciate.

I recently finished my basement. Came out pissah. However, I wouldn’t think of entering a discussion by saying “As a carpenter” or “as a plumber” even though I had to learn and use those skills.

When confronted with this:

"As for your question for “sources”. I know many people have some form of dependency on “sources” available on the internet, yet for myself as historian that doesn’t count.

As for my studies: I got while exhausting my one working braincell a doctorate as Arabist and last year finished what you call Masters in European History. Now I’m supposed to procede with my research for a doctoral thesis, which is a comparitive study on the social- economical impact of the Crusades on both societies involved.

And this:

Well actually in all it is more then ten(languages) if I count the medieval forms with them.
And I certainly don’t count English among the languages I would dare to say that I master. I never studied it to begin with and my vocabulary and knowledge of the grammar is extremely limited.

And by the way: where do you see a sentence where I write I’m an expert on Christianity, even when it is Catholicism.
Study of Christianity (comparitive Islam/Christianity) and study of Christian history (for Islamic History and European History both) is what I did.

and this:

First of all, as historian, I don’t trust “websites” and I don’t trust “articles” to serve a reliable references. (Those coming from official websites like for example the UN excluded). That would be about the same as throwing my whole library in the Atlantic.

and this:

Like I said, I’m not in the least an Iraqi citizen. I have a doctorate as Arabist which of course includes Islamic studies and Islamic History studies. So in that perspective I’m authorized to give classes about all the related subjects.

As for your question for “sources”. I know many people have some form of dependence on “sources” available on the internet, yet for myself as historian that doesn’t count.

and this:

I’m Arabist. That means that Islam is my studyfield. That includes the study of the Hadieth.

and how about this:

I think I have to clarify one and an other about myself here, in order to avoid further misunderstandings.
I’m historian and although I don’t post here as such, but as a person who permits his own background and views to play a role in everything he writes here, my training as historian always and everywhere defines what I would dare to call a reliable historical source.

He’s a Historian! No, he’s a Linguist!! No, he’s an Arabist!!..Weeping Jayzus on a popsickle stick; It’s not a matter of what you are, it’s a question of what you aren’t!!

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**Sodan,

1. Read my explanation about the State structure of Belgium again. The Juridical power does not “make laws”. That power is for the governments.
   **

Yes, I understood that completely. What difference does it make?

So the laws in Belgium come from “the government” instead of the courts. Well and good. Does that mean that any laws passed by the American legislative branches of government are therefore appropriate?

Including those limiting the ability of citizens to disagree with each other?

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**
2. I find protecting people against discrimination not limiting “free speech”.
So you find that if you forbid your child to use vulgar language, if you forbit your child to spit on others, if you forbid your child to curse, then you limite his/her “free speech”? So you let them say and do what they want to whomever they want?
If you like to raise children who don’t know how to behave, that is then your choice. I would say that you have no clue how to raise them.

That is the difference here. The difference between decency, culture and morality and Wild West situations.

Salaam. A **

Bryan Elkers has dealt effectively with the false dichotomy you are trying to set up.

For the rest, spitting on someone is different from cursing them, and children are treated differently from adults. And child rearing practices have nothing to do with the discussion so far.

Would you agree that forbidding anti-war protestors from insulting those who support the war is a limitation on their free speech? Would you agree that burning the flag as an insult to Americans is worthy of being forbidden?

Can we as a society, in the interests of “decency, culture, and morality”, forbid certain kinds of speech if others find it insulting?

If you don’t care to respond to that, I would be even more interested in your response to Bryan Elkers question about private citizens.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan_Ekers]

*Originally posted by bizzwire *
It’s a subtle nuance that only a…a…I don’t know…a…linquist could appreciate.

And when he was young, he was a juvenile delinquist!

Psst, Shodan, when writing my name, think of Christmas. No ‘L’.

Meantime, Citizen X and Citizen Y are still awaiting words of wisdom from our local Arabist/Linguist/Historian.

[Aldebaran]

Bizzwire,

Of course I’m occupied with what I studied. I said that I don’t use it to make a living. Which means: I don’t teach for the sake of making money, I don’t translate with the goal to make money, I don’t publish with the goal to make money.

What is so difficult about understanding something that simple?
Is it the Capitalistic dream that everything one does has to bring him financial profit that prevents you from understanding?

Salaam. A

[Shodan]

Psst - sorry, Bryan Ekers.

Hey, Aldebaran - any answers to the relevant questions, or are we going off on a tangent about capitalism now?

Regards,
Shodan

[Typo_Negative]

*Originally posted by Aldebaran *
**Is it the Capitalistic dream that everything one does has to bring him financial profit that prevents you from understanding?

**

Well, you see, in a capitalistic society, money is the basic unit of echange. It is used in exchange for goods and services, and rent and stuff like that. We often have jobs in order to acquire money and these jobs take up a considerable amount of our time. If our activities make us money, we call them jobs or vocations. It’s great if we enjoy these activites, so much the better. If these activities don’t make us money, we call them hobbies, or avocations. These are done, usually, just for the enjoyment.

Part of the American dream, though, is for your avocation and vocation to be kinda the same activity. You know, to make a living doing what you love to do anyway. So we can’t understand if someone doesn’t try to make money doing something they enjoy that they could make money doing.

I hope that helps.

[Zoe]

Aldebaran: Thank you for your compliment about my English, but you shall see that it differs by the day, and even by the minute sometimes.

Yes, I had noticed. Sometimes you spell correctly words that are exceptions to English rules of spelling – such as weird. And you use words that would be in a more advanced vocabulary (such as altruistic) while misspelling basic constructions (such as another).

It is also a bit funny that the same people I talk about here are now posting that I’m some sort of imposter who lies when he says he never studied English. One of them even claims to be a teacher of English.He came with some opinions on my grammar and said that I even use “slang”… Knock me dead, I have no clue what he talks about. When people start using dialect I’m completely lost.

I can give you an example of what he is talking about. The expressions that you used above – knock me dead, have no clue,by the minute and completely lost are unusual uses of those words unless the speaker is intensely familiar with the language. A person who did not grow up speaking English would be more likely to say, “When people speak in a dialect I do not understand.”

Here are other examples from your posts from just the first page of this thread:

as free as a bird
Oh God… Not again.
Keep it serious will you
every single day
Poor soul
You can laugh with them in their face
flag waver
Nice. (Used as a one word response – a sentence in itself.)

There is another word for such usages besides “slang.” And, to the best of my knowledge, every language has these “give-a-ways.”
You do not seem to show an understanding of what a linguist is. It is not a person who speaks many languages or knows the older versions of a language. Showing an indepth understanding of what an abstraction ladder is would be more convincing. (But it is too late, I’m afraid.)

That doesn’t mean that the topic hasn’t been interesting, but it does help to clarify why your logic about freedom of speech has gone in circles.

I wish you well.

~ just another English teacher ~

[Bryan_Ekers]

So, you’re just going to leave Citizen X and Citizen Y in legal limbo?

You monster!
Oh, well… I consider it ignorance well fought.

[bizzwire]

Bizzwire,

Of course I’m occupied with what I studied. I said that I don’t use it to make a living. Which means: I don’t teach for the sake of making money, I don’t translate with the goal to make money, I don’t publish with the goal to make money.

What is so difficult about understanding something that simple?

Salaam. A

Well, first of all, what makes it hard to understand is that it’s unintelligible.
For instance, the word “occupied” as you use it can mean “busy with,” a slight (but significant) difference from “occupation.” So the first sentence could either mean that you make a living from whatever you claim to be an authority in, or it could be interpreted as a stilted attempt to say that it is merely an avocation.

Your third sentence is also vague, given the fact that English is not your primary language, you’re dyslexic, and have only one functioning brain cell (HAW HAW! I love that joke!). You say you don’t translate,teach and/or publish for the sake of making money. Does this mean that you do it for love, gratis, and make ends meet in some more pedestrian manner, such as a steamfitter or a stevedore? Or does this mean that translation/teaching/publishing is your major source of income, but your motivation is for the work itself, and not the attendant paycheck?

I guess my ( and possibly others’) preoccupation is to try and gauge with what credentials and authority you speak with. There are certain posters on this board who have no qualms about stating what they are and do, which tends to give some “oomph” to their viewpoints. Naturally, a person can make up a fictituous “legend”, but they would be soon found out. Still these people write with such a command of their subject matter that their bona fides are not in doubt. In addition, these people have earned my respect because they are a) willing to admit when they are wrong, b) willing to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and experience, and c) willing to consider and even *concede to *opposing viewpoints when a compelling enough argument has been made.

You on the other hand, are extremely (suspiciously?) cagey about your background, and your writing style and rhetorical approach are so sloppy, so obstinate and, yes, immature, that we (me, at least) are left with the impression that you are a person of little consequence, and, in the absence of any collateral, cannot take your claims to be an authority on linquistics, history, Christianity or Islam very seriously.

If you could just throttle back on the bombast, and be a little more flexible toward opposing views, you probably wouldn’t find yourself in a corner so often.

I apologize for this incredible trainwreck of a hijack.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[bizzwire]

Bizzwire,

Of course I’m occupied with what I studied. I said that I don’t use it to make a living. Which means: I don’t teach for the sake of making money, I don’t translate with the goal to make money, I don’t publish with the goal to make money.

What is so difficult about understanding something that simple?

Salaam. A

Well, first of all, what makes it hard to understand is that it’s unintelligible.
For instance, the word “occupied” as you use it can mean “busy with,” a slight (but significant) difference from “occupation.” So the first sentence could either mean that you make a living from whatever you claim to be an authority in, or it could be interpreted as a stilted attempt to say that it is merely an avocation.

Your third sentence is also vague, given the fact that English is not your primary language, you’re dyslexic, and have only one functioning brain cell (HAW HAW! I love that joke!). You say you don’t translate,teach and/or publish for the sake of making money. Does this mean that you do it for love, gratis, and make ends meet in some more pedestrian manner, such as a steamfitter or a stevedore? Or does this mean that translation/teaching/publishing is your major source of income, but your motivation is for the work itself, and not the attendant paycheck?

I guess my ( and possibly others’) preoccupation is to try and gauge with what credentials and authority you speak with. There are certain posters on this board who have no qualms about stating what they are and do, which tends to give some “oomph” to their viewpoints. Naturally, a person can make up a fictituous “legend”, but they would be soon found out. Still these people write with such a command of their subject matter that their bona fides are not in doubt. In addition, these people have earned my respect because they are a) willing to admit when they are wrong, b) willing to acknowledge the limits of their knowledge and experience, and c) willing to consider and even *concede to *opposing viewpoints when a compelling enough argument has been made.

You on the other hand, are extremely (suspiciously?) cagey about your background, and your writing style and rhetorical approach are so sloppy, so obstinate and, yes, immature, that we (me, at least) are left with the impression that you are a person of little consequence, and, in the absence of any collateral, cannot take your claims to be an authority on linquistics, history, Christianity or Islam very seriously.

If you could just throttle back on the bombast, and be a little more flexible toward opposing views, you probably wouldn’t find yourself in a corner so often.

I apologize for this incredible trainwreck of a hijack.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Optihut]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Well, at least you are reading cites, rather than dismissing them out of hand because you are afraid they might contradict you.

The link is to an article produced in the UK, discussing the possibility of passing laws making it an offense to deny that the Holocaust occurred. Part of that report covered laws against Holocaust denial in other countries, like Belgium.

That’s the relevance.

So, to briefly recap -
[ul][li]Belgium has laws restricting speech that denies the Holocaust[/li][li]The US and UK do not[/li][li]You contend that Belgium has freedom of speech, but the US does not[/li][li]Here is an example of Belgium restricting speech[/li][li]You allege that this doesn’t count, because courts in Belgium are not part of the government[/li][li]The Belgian laws restricting speech on the Holocaust were not passed by the courts, but by the government[/li][/ul] So, in this example at least, the US has freedom of speech that Belgium does not.

Regards,
Shodan **

The conclusion is flawed, imho: The freedom of speech ends, when you´re infringing other people´s rights (or downright breaking the law). Try talking about detonating a bomb while you´re sitting inside an airplane or about assassinating “a president” and anywhere on the globe you´ll find yourself in trouble (to put it mildly). Does this mean no country has got freedom of speech? Well, one could argue that way, but that would defeat the debate. So I rather think that certain matters are exempted from freedom of speech. Since the government declared that it´s illegal to deny the holocaust, this is not an incision of freedom of speech - your freedom of speech ends when you´re committing a crime with it (for example when does talking about an assassination morph from “mere speech” to plotting murder?). Besides, people know beforehand that it´s a taboo topic, it´s not like the government is swooping down on them out of the blue.

[Shodan]

*Originally posted by Optihut *
**The conclusion is flawed, imho: The freedom of speech ends, when you´re infringing other people´s rights (or downright breaking the law).
**

Yes, if you are willing to concede that other people have a right to be free from disagreement. If you, or Robbins and Sarandon, have the right to be free from any consequence imposed by any private citizen based on the private citizen’s agreement or disagreement with their position, then yes, I am infringing on their “rights” by not inducting them into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Unfortunately, this also means that I do not have the freedom of speech to disagree, even symbolically. Freedom for one set of opinions means no freedom for any other.

The US deals with this dilemma be defining the right of free speech only as the right to speak without the government taking any action against you based on that speech. Private citizens are also free to agree or disagree in any way short of violence.

*Originally posted by Optihut *
**
Since the government declared that it´s illegal to deny the holocaust, this is not an incision of freedom of speech - your freedom of speech ends when you´re committing a crime with it (for example when does talking about an assassination morph from “mere speech” to plotting murder?). Besides, people know beforehand that it´s a taboo topic, it´s not like the government is swooping down on them out of the blue. **

Wow.

So if the government passed a law tomorrow morning that prohibited anyone from criticizing the war in Iraq, that would be OK with you? Certainly we know that such criticism is unpopular. Thus it is not a “bolt from the blue”. Thus - it is OK?

Wow.

Regards,
Shodan

[Latro]

I agree. That is in no way a good criterium.

Obnoxious as the denial of the holocaust may be to people, having a law against it is indeed a restriction on freedom of speech.

[Optihut]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Wow.

So if the government passed a law tomorrow morning that prohibited anyone from criticizing the war in Iraq, that would be OK with you? Certainly we know that such criticism is unpopular. Thus it is not a “bolt from the blue”. Thus - it is OK?

Wow.**

Well, I wouldn´t put it past Rumsfeld to declare that anyone who disagrees is in fact an enemy of peace or a supporter of terrorism, so if the government would prohibit it tomorrow, I wouldn´t be surprised and it would once again confirm my worst suspicions about the lot at the helm right now.

That aside, I feel there is a good reason that people, who claim the holocaust never happened are pushed into that corner, so I don´t have a problem with the government stating beforehand that it is a “banned” topic. I also understand the need not to make jokes about bombs and crashing planes while I am travelling (or not travelling, I rarely joke about these things anyway) when I am on an airplane. If you see that as a limit of freedom of speech, that´s your “problem”, not mine. I for one understand that there are rules and with those rules there are exceptions to the rules, without making the rule per se invalid.

Now, if you actually wanted to know with your question whether I think being against the war was on the same level as terrorism or denying the holocaust or spreading hate propaganda, then my clear answer is “No, I do not!”
The reason why you´re still happily juggling your apples and oranges is that the holocaust is a historical fact and drawing the conclusion that people, who aim to have it erased from history books are actually trying to erode our democratic structures is a sound one. Stiffling the opposition on current events certainly is not.

But, this is my opinion and not really crucial for this thread anyway.

As for examples of alleged cropping of freedom of speech, nobody really addressed the issue with the guy who sold adult comic books to adults and was arrested for that, which I posted on page 4.

It (and the airport / bomb example) clearly shows that everywhere the freedom of speech is “limited” in some form. Belgium may have other hot topics than the USA, but all countries do have taboo topics - in no way does this prove that country A has more freedoms than country B. As I said, it´s different topics that are viewed differently in different cultures.
Besides, even if it would prove that the USA would have a higher freedom of speech than Belgium (which it does not prove, as I pointed out before), then this would not dispell the OP. The OP was a discussion about whether the freedom of speech in the USA is endangered or not. Trying to raise a stink about Belgium doesn´t solve the issue at hand and in fact another “let´s compare the differences in freedom of speech on a country per country basis” thread would do this hijack more justice.

The crucial point for me still remains the borderline, where a personal freedom to boycott and disagree becomes a mass movement. As I said before, disagreement is one thing and discrimination is another. The distinction is difficult to see and even harder to prove legally, but that´s what people should be aware of at least. Ultimately it´s your choice with how much awareness you go through life, my “work” of pointing out some errors and setting some things straight here is done. Especially considering some people are trying very hard to dance around issues, deliberately misunderstand points and exaggerate conclusions ad absurdum. :mad:

[Shodan]

Well, I wouldn´t put it past Rumsfeld to declare that anyone who disagrees is in fact an enemy of peace or a supporter of terrorism, so if the government would prohibit it tomorrow, I wouldn´t be surprised and it would once again confirm my worst suspicions about the lot at the helm right now.

But you would support such a law, is that correct?

As I said before, disagreement is one thing and discrimination is another. The distinction is difficult to see and even harder to prove legally, but that´s what people should be aware of at least.

Even more difficult without any ability to define what constitutes “disagreement”, and what constitutes “discrimination”.

As regards the OP about Sarandon and Robbins, are you saying that I could disagree with their position on the war, but not boycott their movies? Are you saying I could speak out against their opinions, but I was morally compelled to induct them into the Baseball Hall of Fame?

What other obligations do I incur in disagreeing with them? Should I be compelled to invite them to my college graduation to speak their piece?

The crucial point for me still remains the borderline, where a personal freedom to boycott and disagree becomes a mass movement.

So we should have freedom of speech, provided not too many people agree with us? I would bet that belief in the reality of the Holocaust is a majority view, and that those who deny it suffer all kinds of consequences if they speak their views. How does this affect your idea of “Free speech becomes discrimination if validated by a majority?”

I for one would say that Holocaust deniers should not be eligible for induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Do you agree? Does it matter if there is no law against Holocaust denial?

The place where I draw the line is violence, and government involvement. I can disagree with Sarandon, but I cannot beat her up, and the government cannot deny her any of her rights because of her opinions. But I can boycott her movies, not induct her into the Hall of Fame, not hire her to work on my charity, and otherwise send her to Coventry.

Suppose she was a Holocaust denier. Which of these actions would be inappropriate then?

Regards,
Shodan

[Optihut]

I´ll take you to a baseball game and will buy you some ice cream. So there, are you happy now?

Ok, I lied - I won´t

[wonky]

*Originally posted by Optihut *
**I´ll take you to a baseball game and will buy you some ice cream. So there, are you happy now?

Ok, I lied - I won´t **

Wow, that was helpful.

To me, the only time a “mass movement” becomes problematic is if it’s attempting to make a law.

Saying that Holocaust deniers are eroding history is just an excuse to shut up people with ugly viewpoints. What’s next? “People who claim FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance are eroding history! They must be silenced!”

Julie