Huh?
Hamlet,
I don’t feel any need to read your link. Probably the case you refer to was a violation of the anti discrimination law.
If you live in a country, you need to obey that countries laws. If you don’t, it is not “the government” that makes you obey the law, but the juridical system.
Every citizen has the right to make other citizens obey the law by all legal means possible. You don’t need to go to “the government” for that. You just need to know the law and your rights and how to use them.
In Belgium laws don’t change because there was a new government elected. The government and its members also has/have to obey the law. That is controled by the juridical system. That is called separation of powers.
Salaam. A
Aldebaran, playing the martyr does not bolster your argument.
Actually, my view on your position was biased before I posted to this thread, because I have some fairly strong views on freedom of expression which are contradicted by your original post. I don’t know you well enough to write opinions about you personally. I’m only responding to what you write.
Silence you? How am I supposed to do that? Only the moderators of this board can silence you, and I’ve never asked them to or implied that they should. As for discrediting you… you’re doing a fine job of that, yourself, with your shoddy logic. Accusing me of trying to silence you (when I’ve never done or tried to do anything of the sort) doesn’t help, by the way.
Do you have an actual argument to make? Reality is cruel, it seems hardly necessary to point that out. So what? How are my views unjust or premature, by the way? Do you have a specific example?
If I was just advertising my prejudices, I’d have simply resorted to personal attacks. Instead, I’ve tried to pick out the many flaws in your position. Your accusation makes no sense. Much of what you have written here makes no sense.
Munch,
Making weird and abolutely silly assumptions doesn’t make you look adult.
Salaam. A
All right. The holocaust example came from page 3 and I picked it up and used it in the opposite way. But, actually it doesn´t fit at all, so I would actually prefer not bringing it up anymore. I apologize for having done so myself.
I don´t have a problem with “some consequences”, as long as they are not over the top.
Well, see, this is really the big issue here: If those guys are just yahoos that want to get under people´s skin and then scream bloody murder when they get the response they wanted to provoce in the first place, then I don´t have any sympathy with them. But it´s difficult to sort out those examples and the ones where people are facing unfair treatment, because of their political views. It´s very hard to tell reading the news.
I think the government needs to step in when people base their reaction solely on political views. The political views are protected, just like race and religion are.
I quote article 3.3 from the German “Grundgesetz”:
This means “Nobody may be put at a disadvantage or advantage, because of his gender, his heritage, his race, his language, his home and origin, his belief, his religious or political views.”
Certainly it is difficult to prove that private person X refused to sell stuff to person Y due to person Y´s political views, but if that is really the case here, then this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.
I am sure that if we weren´t talking about political views, but skin colour, then everyone would agree that people cannot start treating black people (purely as an example here) in a bad way with the excuse of “Hey, we´re just private people minding our own business and it´s just pure coincidence that it´s exclusively black people we´ve got our eye on.”
So, it´s a very tricky issue - if people are deliberately provocating just to complain in the media, then I too would say “Big deal”, but if we´ve got actual discrimination due to political views, I am not “cool” with it and won´t shrug it off as simple private people excercising their freedom of speech as well.
Well, this is a hijack into another topic, but the whole hire and fire policy is something which I would like to see overhauled. Laying off people for their political views wouldn´t sit well with me, again. It might be different with the “pressure by the public”, but in general I would prefer protecting minorities.
I regard it as something worth worrying over. If you guys are telling me that it´s just media hype and things aren´t as bad as they may seem, then that´s a relief. I just want to urge everyone to watch what´s going on, as bad developments are hard to rewind, once they are past a certain point.
So, I am hoping for a blip on the radar screen - as I said, it´s a bit hard to say what´s exactly going on, being far away and having to rely on the media.
If we are talking about discrimination, because of political views, then that´s on par with discrimination for race or religion, imho. Therefore it would be a serious threat. However, I repeat that it still needs to be seen whether this is discrimination or the media exaggerating things.
In certain issues it is the same around here: Your freedom of speech ends, when it infringes another person´s rights. So, for example, you cannot just threaten to beat the crap out of people.
To go with the example of the KKK - whenever there is a “legitimate” demonstration of a few hundred neo nazis, there are tenthousands of counter demonstrants. This seems to be the same as in the USA. However, groups like neo nazis and KKK would be examined, whether they are against the constitution. If they threaten the peace, then they are forbidden. Arguably an incision to freedom of speech and / or expression.
What we don´t allow here is discrimination based on legit political views.
Munch’s statement doesn’t strike me as weird or silly, but you probably could have predicted that.
Bryan E.
None of what you have written here “about” me makes any sense.
So are you here to debate the questions or are you here to make comments “about” the poster.
You prejudice is so clear that one must be completely blind not to notice it.
And that same prejudice led you to try and ridiculize me in a way that others would be influenced by it and thus wouldn’t think about what I’m talking about, but about what you talk about when picturing me = You are trying to silence me because you try to convince others that I am what I’m not in an attempt to make them go away from this thread and to ignore my posts whereever I post them.
You are with that on exactly the same road as the one who had the nerve to post that I’m a troll.
If you don’t see that, look again at your posts.
Salaam. A
The third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, consists of a system of courts spread throughout the country, headed by the Supreme Court of the United States. A system of state courts existed before the Constitution was drafted. There was considerable controversy among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as to whether a federal court system was needed, and whether it should supplant the state courts. As in other matters under debate, the delegates reached a compromise in which the state courts continued their jurisdiction while the Constitution mandated a federal judiciary with limited power. Article III of the Constitution states the basis for the federal court system: "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Non sequiters are your friend! Even if you don’t even deal with the issue, it makes it look like you responded. I could just type a bunch of stuff and maybe it will look like I made a point. We the People, in order to form a more perfect union…hey this is fun… .why deal with the issue of governmental intrusion into free speech or any other issues I raised earlier, we can just type idiotic stuff back and forth. Although I should throw in a few personal insults just to keep up with A.. It can be a whole new way of debating. This is fun. The platypus belongs to the monotreme family. This is an unusual family for although they are mammals they lay eggs. Once the eggs have hatched they do as other mammals do and feed their young milk. There are only three mammals that lay eggs and all are found within Australia. The first is the platypus and the others are two types of echidna.
C’mon everybody give it a try.
**
**
You could, except that the 14th ammendment, later proclaimed that any and all rights that the federal government was unable to take from the citizens, that state and local governments were also unable to infringe upon; and that there have been several Supreme Court cases that further clarify what the establisment clause and free speech clauses are supposed to mean.
Some members keep saying that what is in the constitution of the USA about freedom of speech guarantees it.
Your history shows very clearly that it doesn’t. We only need to look back at the hysteria around the communists and how people got treated and not only by public opinion, but by the government itself.
In my opinion you are heading to face the same problem with all this exaggerated patriotistic flag waving, including the almost obligated advertizing genre: “support the troops” because they are “heros” (goes beyond my comprehension, by the way) and “the president is always right” .
This is the kind of mass hysteria and mass influencing by the government that should at least get you thinking, if not starting to worry you. (There are many other things US’ers cold worry about, but listing them would lead us far off topic.)
So since there are enough members around now to have different opinions on the issue, I’ll add some questions to the OP:
Does this wave of patriotistic fanaticism in the US society worries you.
If yes: why.
If no: why.
Not only directed to citizens of the USA participating here.
Salaam. A
Okay, got any specific points where my analysis of your position has gone wrong? Everything I’ve seen so far is you just calling your critics “immature” or “silly” without explaining why.
I ventured an opinion that a person who posted the way you do is not an honest supporter of freedom of speech, but only of the freedom to speak opinions he agreed with. I might be wrong, but I doubt it, and you haven’t offered anything I’d consider counter-evidence.
That’s another non-responsive response. Okay, you’ve accused me of being prejudiced multiple times, now. Got any evidence that my arguments are wrong?
How “others” respond is up to them. I have no power over the other people reading this thread. They’re free to make up their own minds. I’m not telling them to ignore you. I’m starting my opinion that your opinions are illogical (and ridiculing them a bit, too, but that’s fair game). They can decide which of us to believe. They might decide to believe neither of us. That’s their choice.
If anything, I suggest you stop using the word “silence” until you learn what it means, but if you want to keep using it (incorrectly) I won’t try to stop you. I won’t try to stop you from posting anything you want on this board. I don’t have that power, and I’m not seeking it.
I don’t think you’re a troll. I think you have some irrational and simplistic opinions on free speech, though.
Okay, I’ll bite. How do any of the following quotes by you NOT support the fact that you’re trying to play the martyr here?
-
I can only conclude that you are completely unable to put aside your pointless prejudices.
-
Your view on me was prejudiced even before you posted one letter on this topic. Because I don’t agree with you, you tried to silence/ discredit me with your biased comments.
-
People can’t separate the question from the poster. (Of which zero evidence was given, by the way.)
-
That is you people judging me because it is very clear from my previous posts on this board that I shall never agree with that criminal illegal murdering invasion.
Seriously, before this thread, I’ve never run across you. I had no previous conception of you as a poster. If you reread this thread, you’ll see that my first interactions with you were to help clear up an obvious cultural misunderstanding, upon which you refuse to educate yourself on.
Roger_Mexico has taken a similar stance as you, but with full understanding that it is a different perspective and a different argument he is presenting. He’s expressed himself very well, and has presented actual logic and realism with his argument. If you were to actually take any of the advice given to you in this thread, you’d be massively suprised at how many people might agree with you, myself included. But as it is, all I can suggest is that you try to dig up out of that hole, because you seem to be unwilling to let go of that shovel.
Hamlet,
I think I said I wouldn’t “deal with the issue” you raised for the very good reason that you raised no “issue” at all. You came up with some link to probably some article about most probably a violation of a Belgian law.
I’m not debating Belgian laws here. I’m debating the issue of “free speach” in the USA. You obviously didn’t notice that…But it is what this topic is about.
Salaam. A
Munch,
The post you quoted from was not adressed to you, so why do you take it as such?
And since you do, I’ll go into that and ask you : How is replying the posts of an other member, analyzing his approach “playing the martyr” to you?
And I’m sorry, but most of my posts will tend to come across as a bit strange in style and structure to native English speakers. Those who have met me before are by now informed about why this is.
I must have missed your “cultural misunderstandings” post…There were a lot of posts made here yesterday and this afternoon (= where I am) this website’s server was extremely slow. I didn’t have hours time to wait for pages to turn.
I said I didn’t adress everything, didn’t I.
So what “cultural differences” do you talk about? I see nothing else then very obvious cultural differences where ever I post on US websites.
Salaam. A
Bryan,
So you take back your premature prejudiced posts about me?
And you take back your posts about me not being able to make the same points as I make now, if pro-war activists get treated the way the people I brought in my OP as example? Even after I showed you wrong, you keep going on with your blindfolding prejudice.
And no, I don’t call every “critique” immature or silly. Only those who make themselves look as such. And sorry, but I would be a complete idiot if I even thought about taking such posts as “critiques”. They are merely amusing.
Salaam. A
A little recap for you Aldebaran because I fear you may have missed something.
Then, if you remember, when MGibson, and manhattan called you on this particular issue, you refused to answer their questions, or respond to their arguments, opting instead to insult them. So I added a link to a news story wherein a bookseller was prosecuted and fined BY THE GOVERNMENT for having a book that questioned the extent of the Holocaust.
One of the reasons for that example is, as I’ve stated before:
I questioned your very definition of freedom of speech, I questioned your idea that you would limit freedom of speech to that which is “normal” or “moral” and not hurting somebody’s feelings, and the difference between people acting to chill free speech, and the government acting to restrict it.
Now, all these things have been questioned, yet you sit there and have the audicity to claim I haven’t raised any issues. Your arrogance is simply astounding in light of your deliberate ignorance.
Aldebaran, I’m sorry to see you are still even in this thread. Do you EVER actually answer any questions, or post anything relevant to the OP…YOUR friggin OP at that!! YOU are the only one here thats making personal attacks. Look back. Nearly everyone else is contributing SOMETHING relevant to the thread, whether pro or con the issue…nearly everyone that is, EXCEPT YOU!! I was going to post a list of your unbelievable drivel, but its not worth the effort, as every other poster in this thread is aware that you aren’t even making a slightest effort to actually post ABOUT the thread. All your posts since page one have been personal attacks…something you accuse everyone else of btw, but which YOU are guilty of. Sheesh man, get a grip.
Optihut, thanks for the post. Ok, I see more where you are coming from now.
From Optihut
I don’t think anyone has a problem with this one. No one wants to see things spiral out of control and mobs of people rioting through the streets. I guess the contention though is, where do you draw the line at? Its a difficult question to answer to be honest, made more difficult when its your pet issue involved (whatever that might be). When you are emotionally attached to something, it always looks much harder when people go against what you are saying, especially if they react VERY negatively to it.
I don’t see things spiraling out of control here. I think that there probably WERE some abuses when things were very hot here, but to the best of my knowledge they were isolated incidents, and were corrected adaquately by the system. T & S for example are still out there, speaking out and such…and my guess is, we’ll see one of both of them in movies in the future. Those teachers are, by and large, still teaching. That bill wasn’t passed. In other words, the system as a whole is still functioning as it was intended and as our citizens desire (for the most part). Its still my contention that no system on earth is perfect…ours definitely isn’t either.
From Optihut
I don’t think I’d characterize them as ‘yahoos’, or that their sole reason was to get under peoples skins, but in many cases either through personal conviction or simply the desire to have the issue brought fully and squarely out in the open, they pushed things beyond whats generally considered reasonable. As I said, I have a lot of respect for some of them…it took a lot of courage to confront the system as they did. However, in many cases they did it KNOWING what the consequences would be (i.e. suspension) and felt strongly enough about it to do so anyway. If I personally think what they did was wrong (again, not because it was anti-war, but because it was not the appropriate forum or way to go about it, IMO), I can still admire the courage it took. I have a distinct LACK of respect for T & S though…THEY want their cake and eat it too, IMO.
From Optihut
As far as I know, no one was layed off solely because of their political views, even at the height of the anti-war/pro-war squabble. If someone has a cite of someone perminently losing their job and remaining unemployed because of their particular stance against the war, it would be helpful to post it so we can review it. To the best of my knowledge this didn’t happen. Again, not saying there were not ANY abuses during the recent events…I’d be shocked if that were the case, as again we are all human…but as far as I know nothing like this happened. Even the Dixy Chicks are back being popular again for gods sake (though I personally can’t stand country music :)).
From Optihut
I’m not a big demonstrator or whatever, but its been my impression whenever I HAVE attended a protest or a rally that the police here prefer to keep counter demonstrators away, reguardless of what the demonstration is. I think it has to do with some of the violent counter demonstration we’ve had here, especially during the civil rights period. They aren’t always successful, but I know that if its not offical policy, its sort of a de-facto policy by the police to do this. As far as I know, any organization that isn’t advocating the violent overthrow of the union can and does have public rallies and demonstrations from time to time. IMO its in the best interest of public safetly and peace to keep counter demonstrators at a safe distance from each other, and this is a wise policy by the police. To get away from the anti-war/pro-war thing, think about the consequences if the Black Panthers or some other such group wanted to crash a KKK rally, or vice versa, and the wisdom of such a de-facto policy comes clearer.
-XT
My theory is that we freedom-lovers tend to defend each other.
Becuase you’re accusing me (assuming I’m the “other member”) of trying to “silence” you, when I’ve never done anything of the sort, or tried to do anything of the sort. Claiming that you have been silenced is a standard martyr tactic (i.e. it doesn’t prove what you are saying is true, but does try to get sympathy from people who think you have a right to say it).
Actually, there are a great many native English speakers who feel as claim to. My personal opinion is that they have to be challenged whenever they appear, in the name of protecting freeedom of speech and individual rights. Your personal cultural background is irrelevent. Sometimes, your writings are hard to understand because your command of English grammer and syntax isn’t perfect, but that’s a minor hurdle.
Hamlet,
I already said twice that I don’t address this issue you came up with, and I also explained that “the government” can hardly interfear on its own when someone violates a law in Belgium.
There are laws against discrimination and denial of the Holocaust is something very sensitive in Belgium, because of its very old and prominent Jewish community. Which I also excplained already. And most probably this case is a question of violating the anti discrimination law or related. Which I also said already.
If you refuse to understand that then this isn’t my fault.
And what some website makes of something that can’t be, namely “the government” interfering “in person” when someone violates the law, is not my concern. The government doesn’t interfere, the juridical system does if someone uses it.
If you also refusel to understand that, also not my concern nor is it my fault.
And no, my view on “freedom of speech” doesn’t “boil down” on anything you describe it to be.
I question here the “freedom of speech” the US’ers boast that much about that others are bored to death with it, while in practice we witness that this “freedom” is at the very least questionable enough.
That is what this topic is about. Nothing else.
And you can call me “arrogant” as much as you want. I’m not impressed since I know myself.
Salaam. A