Perhaps before preaching to anyone else, you might want to look in the mirror.
Really. Do you understand the meaning of the words you type? Or do you believe they should apply to everyone else except you?
If you honestly want answers to your questions, then come up with questions instead of sillyness.
If you laugh with someone in a wheelchair and that person feels discriminated or insulted by your idiotic behaviour, then that person has every right to try to sue you if he feels the need to.
If you find that abnormal, go see a doctor to ask a brain transplant. Maybe that helps.
Salaam. A
**
The United States has all sorts of laws prohibiting discrimination in education, housing, employment, and other areas of public life.
**
Yes. Freedom of speech doesn’t just cover things that are popular or nice.
**
Your reaction to speech you don’t like is to use violence to suppress it. Nice.
**
I agree that it is highly disrespectful to go out of your way to hurt someone’s feelings. Of course being disrespectful is all part and parcel of free speech. Do you think my feelings have never been hurt as a result of what someone said?
**
As do we. Our laws do protect rude speech but it also means we have the freedom to use speech of our own.
It isn’t absolutely necessary however there’s no freedom from annoyance.
Marc
Suse… maybe an other person who takes every kind of critique to the Hole Nation Under God or some if the habits of the citizens personal?
Is it my fault you feel that way?
No.
Salaam. A
That’s the whole point of free speech. To flush people out into the open. Unlike, say, Vlaams Blok, who hide their racism until they take over.
Hope that helps.
They can sue you here, too. But that’s not my question. Is it illegal? Will the police arrest you for it? Will the government fine you for it?
Has anyone won such a suit in Belgium? Who? How much? I think you’re making it up.
Yeah. Free speech also means hate speech.
Simple answer.
Freedom of Speech also protects a person’s right to be an idiot.
Freedom of Speech means, quite literally, “freedom of speech”.
…and I’m glad of that. 
Disturbed? Well, if you’re going to attempt ad hominem attacks, at least put in some effort. Got any evidence that responding to criticism of the U.S. with references to past American successes (as well as references to the failings of other nations) is a sign of mental illness?
Heck, I live on colonized land (Canada). And I’m a native citizen. I was born here. My parents were born here. I’m as Canadian as any Canadian.
And I feel okey-dokey.
In all seriousness, I don’t think you hate the U.S. I think, however, you have some vague dislike of it, coupled with a desire to pick-and-choose anecdotal evidence to support your claims. You are, of course, free to express that dislike (within the tolerances of the people running this board, of course) and we are, of course, free to challenge your statements (subject to the same tolerances).
Certainly, there have been cases of private corporations and individuals withdrawing support and offering criticism of individuals with whom they disagree. Do you have a problem with that? If so, what punishments do you suggest for a person who expresses disagreement with someone else? Fines? Jail time? If a person walked up to you and started expressing a political opinion to you that you disagreed with, do you feel obliged to listen to them without comment? You seem to be advocating some kind of legislation that would force people to do just that; shut up and take it.
I prefer the following: anyone is free to criticize anyone else for any reason whatsoever. As a corollary, expressing your criticism does not protect you from counter-criticism from people who think your original criticism has no reasonable basis. As a further corollary, you are free to counter the counter-criticism with counter-counter-criticism of your own, if you think the counter-arguments have no merit… ad infinitum.
The system breaks down when someone substitutes violence or the threat of violence for arguments (i.e. “shut up or I’ll hit you”). Only at that point should the legal system should come into play.
Now, all of this so far refers to private individuals. Governments, with their powers of arrest and control of the courts, require (in a free society) limits on how they respond to individuals expressing their opinions. Governments should be restrained by consitutional limits.
But no-one else.
Marc,
Oh no, I prefer not to use violence. Yet if someone is violent to me, be it in behaviour or in an other way, then I’m attacked first.
So in your opinion I should let you insult me in public without reacting? Nice.
And if your feelings have been hurt because of what someone said, it depends on the situation. Is the person right in his critique, then you can learn something. If he is not, then you say it. But if he does it on purpose to hurt you with something you have no control about, I think he crossed the limits very much.
Let me give an example:
A bit more then a year ago, on an other message board, there was a woman posting about the difficulties in her marriage. She suffered of very much physical abuse and since it was a religious board (Catholic) she came there looking for support and prayers. Months later she came back on that board, got into an argument with an other poster on which he asked her “how is your husband doing with you lately”.
I could see on her next post that she was literally crying and he punched her more and more.
That conversation between those two was in Italian so the moderator couldn’t follow. But I wrote back what I thought of him and reported his behaviour to the moderators.
He got banned. Afterwards I received threatening mails from him and he even gave instructions to others via an other website to follow me around and came back on several others names " to get me".
Do you find he had "the free speech " to hurt that lady deliberatly, knowing very well what she went trough with her husband’s abuse? I do not.
Salaam. A
You seem to prefer to attack the poster rather than to defend your position. Isn’t this considered ‘trolling’? Your comments are all over the spectrum.
The idea that the Congolese still like their former masters would be the subject of a different (and quite heated) debate thread, I believe, so I won’t respond here.
To answer your question: I lived in Leefdaal (outside of Brussels) and worked in Paal. I also lived in Lisbon, Frankfurt, Bamako and Kampala, before you ask, so have some idea of what colonialization is about.
As to the rest of your ridiculous response, I have no comment, since it has nothing to do with your so-called debate topic.
I think you - and others - miss here the line that is drawn between what is morally aceptable and what is abolutely not.
Making fun with a disabled person in his face is absolutely not acceptable and is indeed a form of discrimination.
I don’t know if there was ever someone who felt the need to sue persons for such behaviour or not. But I think that if there are witnesses and he can get the case accepted, at the least he can get was what is called “moral recompensation”. That was in the past usually 1 Belgian franc. I don’t know what it is now, since 1 Euro is about 40 Belgian francs. But it is not the money that counts then but the fact that the other is at least convicted and reprimended for what he did to you.
So yes, there is a way to defend yourself against such people using the anti-discrimination law. I would most certainly do it, just for the fun of it
Salaam. A
Aldebaran:
Your statements contradict each other. For example:
and
Either you feel this way about all Americans or you don’t.
You clearly don’t understand the US or its citizens, yet you claim to know all about our behavior and our rights. You criticize us for doing exactly the same things you do in your posts, and you don’t seem to understand how hypocritical you are being. Either you want to communicate or you want to be inflammatory.
Which is it?
chefguy,
Not to disturb your dreams that your posts have something to do with the topic at hand…
But they don’t.
Salaam. A.
So to you, the basic fundamental difference, the very determinant that makes Belgium’s speech laws so superior to those of the United States is, literally, two cents? And you want me to look into a brain transplant?!?
Suse,
I think you only want to be inflammatory.
I don’t see any replys to my OP or my other posts.
Just some kind of hurt patriotic feelings or whatever, which has nothing to do with it.
If you find that of attacking respond “communication”, well I can’t see any communication in it.
Again: your generalisations are yours, not mine. I’m not responsible for the way you think.
Salaam. A
Insults do not equal violence, though. Are you unable or unwilling to see a distinction between word and action?
Now, it’s possible to threaten violence, and this is where a line is crossed. I’d have to ask if you see any distinction among the following actions:
[ul][li]Saying all blacks are bad.[/li][li]Saying all blacks should be killed.[/li][li]Saying I will kill all blacks.[/li][li]Killing a black person.[/ul][/li]
Where are you drawing your line, or do you feel these are all equally bad?
So? What’s the penalty for crossing that limit? For that matter, are you the correct judge of the limit or are you willing to let law enforcement decide that?
Anecdotal evidence of people acting like jerks is a pretty poor basis for legislation.
I do, though. The responses (the jerk being banned) were appropriate. I’d resist any governmental attempt to stifle him, though.
Shalom. B
Eum… sorry, but am I talking here with schoolkids? Care to try to respond in a mature way? Thank you.
Salaam. A
I might, if you wouldn’t so consistently lie about the U.S.’ laws regarding speech, Belgium’s laws regarding speech, the existence of hate speech in Belgium and just about every other thing you’ve mentioned in this thread.
Personally, I think lying should be illegal and liars fined 1/40th of a Euro. Pay up.
Manhattan, I’ve battered my prow against the fortress of Aldy’s “logic” for plenty of threads until I had to give up, realizing absolutely nothing I would say would make a dent against his attitude. He won’t learn, even from the most thoughtful and tactful posters. His idea of a debate is, I guess, for everyone to say “By God, you are absolutely right about everything!” and then, I dunno, emigrate to Canada or do some other penance.
In fact, maybe that’s the tack we should take with him from now on. Whenever Aldy starts an OP, I intend to jump in with a “You’re right, good God, you are so right!” and then shut up.
Starting now.
You’re right, good God, you are so right!! Thank you, Aldebaran, for opening my eyes!
It’s hard to discuss anything with someone who already has his mind made up. But okay, to your OP:
Yes, we still have freedom of speech. Why do I feel this way? Because I can walk naked down Main Street screaming “I hate George Bush! Ashcroft is a baby-killing warmonger! Condie Rice has plastic hair!” and the only thing that’s going to get me arrested is the nudity.
I can write the same things and send them to the editor of my local newspaper. I can paint them on signs and post them in my yard. I can take out ads on the radio. And the only consequence of my words will be PERSONAL, not LEGAL.
They can’t arrest me. They can’t take away my kids, my dogs, or my job. I can still do everything I did before saying those words.
Certainly, people would disagree with me. Some might call me names, some might insult my family, but none of them would have the power to materially affect me in any way. The only consequences are social, and if the message is important enough to me to say, that’s a consequence I would choose to bear.
To your last post:
You really don’t get it, but I am beginning to believe it’s because you do not choose to do so.