Are there any of the anti-war people, who living in the US, feel afraid of expressing their views in public, or feel in any way discriminated for their views?
I mean especially during the buildup to and during the duration of the war.
quote
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:
Saying all blacks are bad.
Saying all blacks should be killed.
Saying I will kill all blacks.
Killing a black person.
Where are you drawing your line, or do you feel these are all equally bad?
They are all racist, yet the first is rather harmless and generalising racism. But if a black person feels insulted, he can do whatever he likes within the limits of the law if he wants to hold you responsible for your sayings.
As for the other 3: If a black person hears you say that, he should go to the police and make a complaint to begin with.
quote:
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?
That is something you get teached during your upbringing and education. As for cases where there is a law you can use to go against it, you should use it if you feel the need to.
quote:
Anecdotal evidence of people acting like jerks is a pretty poor basis for legislation.
Sorry, I find this a rather childish reaction to something I only put here as example to underscore something I try to explain to you.
And I can hardly give you a link to that other website after searching through its files in the hope it sin’t deleted yet. Sorry… no time.
quote:
I do, though.
See… That is what I call lack of upbringing and lack of respect. That is what is in my eyes highly abnormal. You don’t hurt someone who is defenseless against your attacks deliberately. That is immoral and it is extremely rude and extremely cowardly and extremely sadistic at that. I
quote
The responses (the jerk being banned) were appropriate. I’d resist any governmental attempt to stifle him, though.
I don’t speak about “governmental”. I speak of morals, of respect and of being civilized.
Salaam. A
HEY! Being a pround Canadian, I sorta kinda take offense at that!
Not that I’d call the cops on you or anything…
Things I learned from reading this thread: the great advantage of freedom of speech is that it makes it very clear very fast when someone has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. 
Suse,
All the things you summ up there one can do in Belgium also. The King excepted, not as much a a person because in this position he was and is criticized. But in his position a head of state.
Yet the difference is that people don’t find the need to go insult others for the fun of insulting.
Salaam.
Aldebaran:
What does that have to do with your OP?
Aldebaran what some people have failed to mention is that the treatment of Robbin’s children by their teachers would generally be considered unacceptable and would probably result in their termination.
In my 34 years in the US I’ve yet to see someone laugh at a cripple. And whoever did would be shunned by all. What is the best litmus test of our contentment with our free speech laws is that you’ve had no responses indicating otherwise. Just because someone could feasibly legally get away with laughing at a cripple doesn’t mean it happens, doesn’t mean they don’t pay consequences, and doesn’t mean that another system would be better.
manhattan: The basic difference in the laws in Belgium and America is that the American laws are American and therefore, according to Aldebaran, are Evil[sup]tm[/sup]. Belgian laws aren’t American and therefore are automatically superior, even when they are identical.
Ah…Het Vlaams Blok.
- They don’t hide their racism. It is very well known and to be read openly in their program. Be it the last years a bit “softened” under some threats of being charged by anti-discrimination movements that they violate then anti-discrimination laws.
- They can’t take over since no other politician is ready to form a coalition with them, not on local, not on regional and not on federal level. Thus they stay in the opposition role on which they trive. And it must be said: they have touched several points that were and are indeed serious problems and where covered up all to long. Thus they play a role: they made and keep the politicians awake.
- That they can exist as political party is indeed the result of democracy.
- That they can’t “take over” is in my opinion against democracy. I think this will change in the future somehow.
- If they ever “take over” (mind you that in Belgium no single political party can “take over” since there is always a coalition of at least 2 and many times 3 or more) they will vanish like snow under the sun. Because forming an opposition and screaming loudly is very easy. Working as part of the government to keep thing going is an other case.
We had the example of the green party who was also such a vocal opposition. Until they were voted into the real job. They are now, after the last elections, as good as non existent.
Hope that helps…
Salaam. A
Wumpus,
Yes, you are absolutely right…
So far only a few posters were able to distinct what I talk about. All the rest comes up with remarks that are completely beside the question.
Salaam. A
Note to Bryan Ekers, Sorry! I meant going to Canada to seek the enlightenment and inner peace that is obviously inherent to the average Canadian! 
“Able to distinct what I talk about.” Yeah, I gotta admit, I’ve having trouble distincting what you talk about, doctor.
Okay, what legal remedies do you think are appropriate?
Okay, and what should the cops do about it? Personally, I think they should do nothing about the second statement, possibly investigate the third statement, and definitely make an arrest after the action. My position is that speech should be free, threats should be examined, and only actions punished.
Well, herein lies the problem. You seem to be saying there there ought to be a law restricting some forms of (insulting) expression, while at the same time, criticizing Americans for expressing their dismay at people who express opinions they disagree with. I think what it comes down to is that if a person says something that you personally agree with (i.e. something negative about the recent Iraq war) then that person should be immune from all repercussions, while if a person says something you don’t agree with, that person should be subject to fines.
I don’t accept you as a judge of what opinions can and cannot be expressed.
Anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for any argument on any subject, and considering the importance of the subject at hand (freedom of expression), you’ll need some damn compelling evidence to convince me that more restrictions are needed. I find vague anecdotes about individuals being mean to each other completely uncompelling. Humans are mean to each other all the time. Putting punitive restrictions on that mean-ness, though, creates more problems than it solves. I’d personally prefer that children were raised to be polite (Canadians are big on politeness), but if one person wants to call another person a jerk, so be it.
Actually, I have to make a choice, and I choose freedom to express an opinion to be more important than protecting someone’s feelings. In this particular case, the person you describe was banned from the message board. That seems like a satisfactory resolution to the conflict. Are you suggesting further actions should have been taken against this person? Like what? Litigation? Criminal prosecution? A solid beating? It’s fine to say an action is immoral, rude, cowardly and sadistic, but what do you propse we do about it?
Besides, my upbringing was perfectly okey-dokey. I ended up being an intelligent, mentally stable adult who doesn’t go out of his way to make life difficult for other people. Frankly, if everyone on Earth was like me, this would be an okay planet.
I’m lazy, though, and my world-conquering plans gather dust.
Okay, that person should have acted in a more civilized manner, but he didn’t. What do you propose be done about it? Privately-run message boards can ban him, and privately-run internet companies could refuse to sell him internet access, and any number of private actions could be taken, but how is this any different from people or companies who express dislike of the political views of Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins? Is it meritorious to stand up to a jerk while evil to stand up to a war protestor? Who is to judge which opinions deserve support and which deserve criticism?
The position I prefer is that governments do not stifle any expression (within certain “‘Fire!’ in the crowded theatre” limits) while individuals and corporations can pick and choose according to their own standards. If you can come up with a credible, plausible argument to impose restrictions on speech that is offensive (and not simply stories about offensive people) I’d like to hear it.
kidcharlemagne,
I’m not discussing if yes or no an other system would be better…
Someone asked me what I found better In Belgium. So I answered that.
(Comparing one with an other is not saying one is better then the other, I find my way better, others find theirs better)
I’m discussing the OP (well, I try to, since most people here go in all directions but that one).
Salaam. A
quote
Okay, what legal remedies do you think are appropriate?
The means to sue that person using the law aginst discrimination.
quote:
Okay, and what should the cops do about it? Personally, I think they should do nothing about the second statement, possibly investigate the third statement, and definitely make an arrest after the action. My position is that speech should be free, threats should be examined, and only actions punished.
Posing a complaint by the police is the first step you undertake to make a legal cause against someone. The police must do not else then make the report. That report and eventually others if you are threatened again , can be asked for by your lawyer to make part of your dossier, when you decide to undertake further legal action.
quote:
Well, herein lies the problem. You seem to be saying there there ought to be a law restricting some forms of (insulting) expression,
while at the same time, criticizing Americans for expressing their dismay at people who express opinions they disagree with. I think what it comes down to is that if a person says something that you personally agree with (i.e. something negative about the recent Iraq war) then that person should be immune from all repercussions, while if a person says something you don’t agree with, that person should be subject to fines.
Now you really make me smile. I’m sorry, but this is as immature answer as one can get.
I say that laws against discrimination are there to protect people against discrimination. Do you know what I mean with discrimination.
quote:
quote:
Anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for any argument on any subject, and considering the importance of the subject at hand (freedom of expression), you’ll need some damn compelling evidence to convince me that more restrictions are needed. I find vague anecdotes about individuals being mean to each other completely uncompelling. Humans are mean to each other all the time. Putting punitive restrictions on that mean-ness, though, creates more problems than it solves. I’d personally prefer that children were raised to be polite (Canadians are big on politeness), but if one person wants to call another person a jerk, so be it.
Yes, and you can go on for some days about that and I say that I only gave you that example to give you an expample of what I mean. If yuou refuse to understand that, that is your problem. Hardly mine.
quote:
Actually, I have to make a choice, and I choose freedom to express an opinion to be more important than protecting someone’s feelings. In this particular case, the person you describe was banned from the message board.
I don’t talk about the action undertaken after it happened. I talk about his utterly immoral cruelty you find absolutely normal behaviour. The person he aimed his attacks at wasn’t helped by him being banned afterwards. It happened, she suffered under it. You can’t undo that, can you?
quote
That seems like a satisfactory resolution to the conflict. Are you suggesting further actions should have been taken against this person? Like what? Litigation? Criminal prosecution? A solid beating? It’s fine to say an action is immoral, rude, cowardly and sadistic, but what do you propse we do about it?
Dont behave like that; That is what normal people do.
quote
Besides, my upbringing was perfectly okey-dokey. I ended up being an intelligent, mentally stable adult who doesn’t go out of his way to make life difficult for other people. Frankly, if everyone on Earth was like me, this would be an okay planet.
Well, in my eyes, if you defend such behaviour and find it absolutely normal, you are not. Sorry.
quote
Okay, that person should have acted in a more civilized manner, but he didn’t. What do you propose be done about it? Privately-run message boards can ban him, and privately-run internet companies could refuse to sell him internet access, and any number of private actions could be taken, but how is this any different from people or companies who express dislike of the political views of Susan Sarandon or Tim Robbins?
There is a lot of difference between attacking someone who is defenseless for the sadistic joy of it (or attacking children of people you disagree with and attacking people for their political views.
But what is disturbing at the last is that it is born out of misplaced and exagerrated fanatical patriotism. That is dangerous for the freedom of society in general.
quote
Is it meritorious to stand up to a jerk while evil to stand up to a war protestor? Who is to judge which opinions deserve support and which deserve criticism?
The first is criticizing an obvious case of immorality.
The second is a case of going with blind fanatism and exaggerated patriotism against some one who has other political views. That is a dangerous development to witness.
Just like Mr. Bush with his saying “you are with us or against” us and all the rest of the incredible arrogance one can witness about him and his loyal crew.
Salaam. A
Does that law cover just saying that blacks (or any group) should be killed (the second example in my list), or is it meant to discourage people from denying jobs, leases, etc. from blacks (or any group)? After all, if a person simply says “all blacks should be killed”, what economic harm has been done to any particular black person? Can you quote the relevant laws, either Belgian or American?
Okay, so the cops start a file on someone. Then what? If a person makes the statement repeatedly but never goes any further, then what? How should this information on file be used?
Actually, I don’t. It seems to mean whatever you want it to mean, but I’d like a firm definition. How is that immature?
For that matter, how is disagreeing with Sarandon or Robbins an act of discrimination?
I understand that describing how one person was mean to another person is a poor reason to argue for restricting the freedoms of large numbers of people, which you seem to be advocating, but you’re not being specific enough.
Humans are cruel to each other and have been for all of human history. This is “normal” behaviour for humans, at least as I define the term. It’s not pleasant or polite behaviour, but so what? Her suffering is unpleasant, but it is not greater than the suffering many people would feel if some governmental action was taken to restrict free speech.
Now, the reason I keep bringing up governmental action is because that’s the only action I’m concerned about. Private actions, including banning people from message boards, is trivial.
You still haven’t answered the question, though. What should have been done to this guy, if banning him wasn’t enough? You’re expressing misgivings about freedom of speech; I’d like to know what limits you’d put on it. Also, what if a person was banned from a message board for insulting and hurting the feelings of a person who had expressed support for the Iraq war? Would that be “unfreedom of speach” ?
What if he likes behaving like that? Are you suggesting we start punishing people who you feel are not “normal” ?
I’m not defending his behaviour, I’m defending his right to engage in such behaviour, free from governmental interference. There is a subtle but important difference between the two. I also defend the freedom of message boards to ban him for such behaviour, and for others to criticize his behaviour, also free from governmental interference.
It’s certainly possible to sadistically and joyfully attack someone for their political views. You’re suggesting an obvious borderline where none exists.
Fanatical patriotism has nothing whatever to do with my views. If it did, I would savagely attack anyone who said anything bad about Canada (Mehitabel’s statement equating going to Canada with penance struck me as slightly offensive, but nothing to get upset about).
Truth be told, I’d defend the rights of anyone to make criticisms of Canada, but if those criticisms strike me as illogical, I will certainly challenge them, using my rights of free expression. I will not resort to violence or threats of violence, as a fanatical patriot might. Your assessment of my motives, therefore, is not accurate. I perceive it as a lame attempt at an ad hominem attack and I dismiss it.
Incidentally, freedom is vested in individuals, not societies. Societies can take care of themselves. I care far more about individuals.
Well, you’re making a distinction based on content, and because you agree with the war protestor, his speech seems to deserve more protection in your eyes. What if a celebrity had made *pro-*war statements, and then had endorsement deals cancelled by companies that disagreed? Would the companies in that case be just as guilty of “unfreedom” as the ones that disagreed with Sarandon and Robbins?
That’s another lame ad hominem attempt. Is this a thread about free speech or about the Iraq war? Please decide one way or the other.
Back to the issue ?
I thought the article was well written and should be pretty scary to americans. It might not involve the “LEGAL” freedom of speech… but it certainly gets pretty hard on the “IDEA” of freedom of speech.
Its not that Tim Robbins can or cant speak his mind out anyway he wants… its about the fact that so many are willing to make his and his wife’s life hard when he does so. That people are scared to speak their mind in what is supposed to be a public issue. That jobs might be menaced due to speaking out.
Then all I see are rabid attacks on Aldebaran who takes things a bit far and no debate on the article itself. (Which opened nicely enough for me). If their is no dissent … then there are no brakes on government. There are plenty of examples in history of that going badly. Western Democracy isnt about falling in line… or accepting the governments views blindly. No debate is dangerous.
Legal or not… Freedom of Speech/Thought is limited in the US… maybe very little but it is compared to before… what do you think of it ?
You’re right, good God, you are so right!! Thank you, Aldebaran, for opening my eyes!
Well, my heart bleeds for Robbins and Sarandon, but if they want to be free to express their opinions, and also to be free from people who disagree with those opinions, they need a reality check.
Cool, though I don’t think the attacks on Al’s position were “rabid.” Some of them were borderline insulting, but his counter-attempts to smugly write off his opponents as “immature” aren’t helping.
Freedom isn’t and has never been a fixed quantity. It waxes and wanes depending on who is in charge and how much the public is willing to tolerate. Nevertheless, it is not as bad as Aldeberan states, nor does people disagreeing with Sarandon and Robbins indicate a loss of freedom (on the contrary, it suggests people have lots of freedom to disagree with celebrities who are politically active).
The Bush administration is doing any number of questionable things in the name of national security, and that is a matter worthy of debate and concern, but I don’t see it as relevant to people making life “hard” for Sarandon and Robbins. If Hollywood has “rejected” them, that’s Hollywood’s choice.
As for the specific complaints Robbins made about death threats and whatnot, he can always call the cops. He should get as much legal protection as any citizen, no more, no less.
The basic reason for asking you that having eluded you.
Political and social reform begin at home, mon ami - wherever “home” happens to be, that is. Considering that last sentence of yours (which I actually agree with, unlike most of the rest, in that it acknowledges some possibility of your being wrong), would you like to, um, rephrase your question in a way that does not (1) assume the conclusion. and (2) simply annoy rather than enlighten the reader?
Or perhaps we can begin the December Memorial Countdown now.