Amerika

[213374U]

He's got a point Eldar. What is with you and not touching young men? Or do you just hate gays?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... Or freedom in general? :ph34r:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what they hate us for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The freedom to touch young men? Awww silly terrorists... had you only asked first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gold.

[Craigboy2]

What the hell is Amerika?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A social experiment with an expected lifespan of about 300 years. That would give a "Best before" date of about 2096 or such (give or take a few decades)

 

but we're taking all of you with us

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hell ya, if we're going down than we're taking you guys with us.

[EnderAndrew]

Well I'm not here to amuse you, but you gotta admit... only in America. 

You are saying that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts are only found in America?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

There are fundamentalists all over the world.

 

Athenian Democracy is popular to discuss, and while they innovated, they did not spread Democracy to the rest of the world.

 

Some historians credit the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but really the two documents have next to nothing in common. I would argue that we pulled more so from the Constitution of the Iriquois Nation though our founding fathers would be unlikely to admit it. The documents read very similiar.

 

Either way, I can present an academic arguement about how the USA is in fact the most free nation on this planet and futhermore how we have done more than any nation on this planet to further democracy.

 

If someone wants to test this, I would challenge them to first offer up a nation which is more free and which has done more to spread democracy.

 

I'm taking all commers.

[Commissar]

Well I'm not here to amuse you, but you gotta admit... only in America. 

You are saying that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts are only found in America?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

There are fundamentalists all over the world.

 

Athenian Democracy is popular to discuss, and while they innovated, they did not spread Democracy to the rest of the world.

 

Some historians credit the Magna Carta for inspiring our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but really the two documents have next to nothing in common. I would argue that we pulled more so from the Constitution of the Iriquois Nation though our founding fathers would be unlikely to admit it. The documents read very similiar.

 

Either way, I can present an academic arguement about how the USA is in fact the most free nation on this planet and futhermore how we have done more than any nation on this planet to further democracy.

 

If someone wants to test this, I would challenge them to first offer up a nation which is more free and which has done more to spread democracy.

 

I'm taking all commers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tomorrow. I've had a long day.

[Lucius]

You are saying that fundamentalists like Pat Roberts are only found in America?

 

You're kidding me, right?

 

There are fundamentalists all over the world.

No, but if you've watched the clip, you would probably be able to figure out that I mean only in America could a religious nutjob like this guy get on TV and call for the assassination of a foreign leader. (I'm talking democracies here, mind you)

 

Either way, I can present an academic arguement about how the USA is in fact the most free nation on this planet and futhermore how we have done more than any nation on this planet to further democracy.

 

If someone wants to test this, I would challenge them to first offer up a nation which is more free and which has done more to spread democracy.

 

I'm taking all commers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about this; you post something substantial about WHY it is you think that the USA is more free than other Western democracies, or I can just continue doing the same thing as you, and simply rant on about how mine is better than yours without even knowing how yours is like.

 

EDIT: I might have to go soon, so hurry up already!

[EnderAndrew]

No, but if you've watched the clip, you would probably be able to figure out that I mean only in America could a religious nutjob like this guy get on TV and call for the assassination of a foreign leader. (I'm talking democracies here, mind you)

I've seen the clip where he makes the famous quote. However nutjobs get on TV in a variety of countries. Jihad makes for great TV in the Middle East for instance.

How about this; you post something substantial about WHY it is you think that the USA is more free than other Western democracies, or I can just continue doing the same thing as you, and simply rant on about how mine is better than yours without even knowing how yours is like.

I already offered up a few points which no one has addressed, but you guys called me crazy out of hand.

 

So you don't have to defend your aguements but I have to?

 

First off, in the wake of terrorism, we have been tested. We are forced to reexamine where the line gets drawn on security versus individual rights. The more personal liberties we give up, the easier it is to provide security, but despite the chicken littles screaming that we've lost personal liberites, we still retain complete freedom of speech.

 

I am shocked by how many countries honestly don't really offer 100% freedom of speech. Shouldn't this be basic and unalienable? How do you really have a democracy when the people can't express themselves freely?

 

Both Russia and England are however rolling back on freedoms in the wake of terrorism. Germany outlaws political opinions that it finds offensive, such as neo-nazi posts. Most find those offensive, but freedom of speech is an absolute.

 

In the United States, not only do we have the Bill of Rights to secure our basic rights, we have the ability to ammend the Constitution to make up for flaws in our government, growing and improving as we go along. This power to change gives us even more freedom to push for changes as the democracy sees fit.

 

The United States has been the principle instigator in Democracy's spread through much of the world, and we uphold its tenents as absolutes instead of guidelines which can be bent.

 

Out bicameral legislative branch is a good example of democracy and freedom at work, providing a compromise to ensure that all states are protected at a federal level. They are provided equal representation regardless of population on one side, and the majority is given more representation on the other side. Everyone is happy.

 

Threats to freedom come from both minorities and majorities and when upholding a democracy, both need to be addressed.

[Lucius]

I've seen the clip where he makes the famous quote.  However nutjobs get on TV in a variety of countries.  Jihad makes for great TV in the Middle East for instance.

I was talking about democracies, however. But you're right, they probably do get on TV in other nations, however I don't know of any cases except for this.

 

I already offered up a few points which no one has addressed, but you guys called me crazy out of hand.

 

So you don't have to defend your aguements but I have to?

 

(1) First off, in the wake of terrorism, we have been tested.  We are forced to reexamine where the line gets drawn on security versus individual rights.  The more personal liberties we give up, the easier it is to provide security, but despite the chicken littles screaming that we've lost personal liberites, we still retain complete freedom of speech.

 

(2) I am shocked by how many countries honestly don't really offer 100% freedom of speech.  Shouldn't this be basic and unalienable?  How do you really have a democracy when the people can't express themselves freely?

 

Both Russia and England are however rolling back on freedoms in the wake of terrorism.  Germany outlaws political opinions that it finds offensive, such as neo-nazi posts.  Most find those offensive, but freedom of speech is an absolute.

 

(3) In the United States, not only do we have the Bill of Rights to secure our basic rights, we have the ability to ammend the Constitution to make up for flaws in our government, growing and improving as we go along.  This power to change gives us even more freedom to push for changes as the democracy sees fit.

 

(4) The United States has been the principle instigator in Democracy's spread through much of the world, and we uphold its tenents as absolutes instead of guidelines which can be bent.

 

(5) Out bicameral legislative branch is a good example of democracy and freedom at work, providing a compromise to ensure that all states are protected at a federal level.  They are provided equal representation regardless of population on one side, and the majority is given more representation on the other side.  Everyone is happy.

 

Threats to freedom come from both minorities and majorities and when upholding a democracy, both need to be addressed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I honestly don't think that you have, but nevermind.

 

Anyway, (1) However you might think of it as a test, I know a few Americans who seriously do believe that the creation of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security is a step in the wrong direction, you can't in any possible way twist this into something that makes the USA more free, quite the contrary really. Needless to say, my country does not have either of these two, but we haven't been attacked either. But whether freedom is tested under attack really isn't the point since I can't say how we would have reacted.

 

(2) Well, I don't live in either England, Russia or Germany. But I agree, freedom of speech ought to be basic and unalianable, you might even want to throw Sweden in there which is (seen with Danish eyes) extremely political correct. I have sympathy with Germany and its disdain for Neonazism, however, but just shutting up the minorities with laws won't do you any good in the long run. Here, there is only one limit, and that is the "Racism law" which can jail people for making strong racist comments, however recently there has been talk about removing this. You gotta admit though, there must be certain limits to your freedom of speech, such as advocating terrorism and death threats. Speaking ill about the Queen is also punishable, but I've not heard of anybody actually getting nailed for this, the monarchy does have around 80% public support.

 

(3) In Denmark, we have the "Groundlaw" of 1849, when the nation transgressed from an Absolute Monarchy, to a Constitutional Monarchy, and our Groundlaw (like your constitution) has been ammended many times over the years, a change in these demands a majority vote in the Folketing (parliament), then a public vote of 40%, then a majority vote in the parliament again. It is up to be changed again these days, actually, in order to secure the right for the firstborn baby of the Crownprince and Crownprincess to be monarch no matter if it is boy or girl.

 

(4) Can't really argue with you there, my only beef with you is the national freedom thing, and that we don't really go around thanking you in our hearts for having democracy today, I think it is wrong try and to take credit for everything.

 

(5) In 1953 the people by popular vote adopted a new constitution. Among the changes was the elimination of the Landsting (our old second house) and the introduction of a unicameral parliament, known only as the Folketing.

This was partly due to obstructed passage of legislation by the second house, which was found obsolete. The problem is see with your system, and which I find lacking freedom of choice, is the dominant two party system. Here, we currently have six parties in the parliament, parties with their own public support and politics, it makes the choice more diverse, and less "black and white"

[EnderAndrew]

1 - The Patriot Act is a bit of a media creation. It passed with huge support from both parties. It allowed various intelligence agencies to communicate together, allowed the government to monitor computers they owned, etc. Did you know before the Patrior Act, the 9/11 terrorists used public computer terminals at libraries because they knew they weren't monitored?

 

Corporations (such as the one I work for) can legally monitor what I'm typing right now on their computer, but the government can't do the same on computers they own, because it is against the law.

 

Most said that that Patriot Act was a very necessary step to allow law-enforcement agencies do their jobs. Kerry was a big proponent of it. Now the media throws the Patriot Act around as the worst thing in history. I keep asking what rights it took away, and no one has any answers. But they've heard it is bad, so clearly it must be. Again, see chicken little syndrome.

 

2 - My wife is currently debating this very issue in one of her classes, and many of the students feel that freedom of speech should not be absolute. Feminists groups for instance push for the censorship of pornography for instance even though they can't define it. The problem is where do you draw the line? Freedom of speech must remain an absolute or it is worthless. To quote a dead French dude, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

3 - Allowing for change is a necessity for any government to work.

 

4 - Historians have no qualms creditting Athens which did nothing to really spread Democracy beyond its borders. Again, I feel this comes down to people feeling comfortable praising an underdog, but afraid to give credit to a superpower for fear of inflating their ego. I don't believe it is a sin to give credit where credit is due. I don't claim I live in a perfect country by any means. But I do take pride in certain things.

 

5 - I think the bicameral system is good to prevent oppresion from the minorities and oppression from the majority. Our Constitution does not create nor recognize specific parties. In fact, George Washington didn't belong to a party when he was President, though he later became a Federalist. If our political parties were able to form, dissolve and change over the years, I imagine the same could happen again someday, but right now I think we as a population (as influenced by the media) are too gung-ho about our two political parties. I feel they are really hurting the country.

[Walsingham]

I don't agree that freedom of speech is an absolute. What about incitement to riot? What about getting in a pulpit and demanding the extermination of another 'race'?

 

 

Freedom of speech is not an end in itself. It is a means to the end of securing a just society in which basic human rights are respected. It is prized where it permits persons to complain when their rights are abused. It is (IMO) correctly reviled where it permits persons to call for the the abuse of those rights.

 

One can argue that where views are particularly repellent tehn they will be mocked and disregarded without the assistance of the law. But as we have found in the UK, with our dissident Muslim preachers this is not necessarily the case. Moreover there is the arguement that the ostensible victims of such abuse should have no obligation to suffer the anxiety and offence of such attacks.

[EnderAndrew]

I don't agree that freedom of speech is an absolute. What about incitement to riot? What about getting in a pulpit and demanding the extermination of another 'race'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about those statements?

 

My statements haven't swayed you, changed your opinion, or forced you to do anything. And my statements aren't extreme.

 

If someone makes extreme statements, I will likely disagree with them, but those that follow such statements do so of their free will. They weren't forced to just because they heard an expression of speech.

 

If freedom of speech is not absolute, then where do you draw the line?

 

Incitement to riot could be discussing ANY contraversial issue, or anything that disagrees with the majority.

 

You can't draw lines. Either freedom of speech is absolute, or it doesn't exist.

 

Edit: I'd like to add that while Germany has outlawed any neo-nazi statements, or statements that the Holocaust didn't occur, censorship has not solved the issue. People still put together neo-nazi websites in Germany and bypass censorship.

 

The best weapon to combat ignorance is not censorship, but rather education.

[Walsingham]

I don't agree at all that freedom of speech is an absolute any more than I believe freedom of action is an absolute. I fail to see how one cannot draw a line. Legislation is always drawing lines in fields where one end is positive and the other negative. Here I would argue one can say that incitement to violence is an abuse of the freedom of speech.

 

Moreover, as I said in the UK we have had laws outlawing the use of speech to advocate violence for hundreds of years. Many politicians over here have opposed new legislation simply because we have existing legislation that should be capable of addressing teh problems we face.

[EnderAndrew]

You're dodging the issue.

 

WHERE do you draw the line?

 

You mentioned anything that can incite a riot. That is so vague it would be easily abused. When you talk of legislation, you try not to pass laws that can't be enforced or clearly defined.

 

If you say anything that offends someone else, well then you open another can of worms. Talking about Barbie dolls might offend someone, while mentioning Easter might offend someone who doesn't like religious holidays.

 

Pick up a copy of Fahrenheit 451. The moment we become so terrified of offending people that we open the door to censorship, there is no going back.

[Walsingham]

I've read Fahrenheit 451.

 

You draw the line when someone is advocating an illegal act, and you rely on the police and judiciary to sensibly apply the law. Quite simply, you place an absolute ban on persons advocating violence against persons or property.

 

I should add that people don't realise that English law is baed on Saxon law, not Roman law. Roman law expects the law to do the hard work. Saxon law expects the judiciary to do the hard work. Or, to put it another way, in our system the law is a range of weapons that the state can use, not a set of rules it must enforce. When you do this you make the law cover anything you might want to nobble, and then keep an eye on those using it.

[EnderAndrew]

So you should have laws that you don't necessarily enforce?

 

Let's just enforce them when it is convienent to make a victim.

 

So if there is a law that you disagree with, you shouldn't have the freedom to disagree with it, because you might vocally advocate something that is against the law?

 

You can have your dystopian society, and I'll keep my personal liberties thank you.

[Walsingham]

What I am saying is that you are being unecessarily alarmist. thsi is how we have been doing things in the UK for hundreds of years. I am not sitting in a dictatorship as a consequence. Indeed, it was this capacity of the state to force people to shut up that helped us keep a lid on both Fascism and Communism during the 1930s.

 

To draw an analogy, you do not object to the Police being armed, even though those weapons could be used to oppress the masses. You recognise their occasional utility and constantly scrutinise their actual employment.

[EnderAndrew]

I'd object to the police being armed if it wasn't required by law that there be a Grand Jury everytime they shot someone, but it is required by law. Thusly the police are being held accountable.

 

There are multiple offices whose sole job is to check for police abuse and inpropriety.

 

You are promoting censorship because free speech leads to riots, and calling me an alarmist?

[alanschu]

I can't think of anything that I'm not allowed to say in Canada.

 

 

And while I can't draw the line of where free speech should be capped, but is absolute free speech better? If that was the case, is there nothing I can do to stop someone that follows me around annoying the crap out of me?

 

What if I'm being stalked, but not attacked violently? If someone continuously walks up to me telling me that they're going to kill me, under absolute free speech would this be allowed?

 

I dunno.

 

Absolute is a very all encompassing word.

 

 

Having said that, even in America, if I walk into the White House screaming "I'm going to kill the president!" I doubt that nothing gets done about it.

[Walsingham]

What I am saying is that inflammatory speech is a critical component in both riots and racial/sectarian violence. And that criminalising people who contribute to both by using their 'free' speech is part and parcel of an effective strategy to prevent such activity.

 

While we are on the subject, why are you not equally absolutist on teh subject of freedom of association? The RICO statutes in the US criminalise membership of certain groups. An abuse of rights, possibly. Yet the RICO statutes underpin every effective move to tackle organised crime.

[EnderAndrew]

What I am saying is that inflammatory speech is a critical component in both riots and racial/sectarian violence. And that criminalising people who contribute to both by using their 'free' speech is part and parcel of an effective strategy to prevent such activity.

 

While we are on the subject, why are you not equally absolutist on teh subject of freedom of association? The RICO statutes in the US criminalise membership of certain groups. An abuse of rights, possibly. Yet the RICO statutes underpin every effective move to tackle organised crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the people acting out violence aren't to blame? No, it is someone who forced them to act out in violence through mere speech.

 

It has been proven that censorship does not stop violence, hatred or bigotry. Censorship isn't the answer. Hate crimes are only really combatted with education.

 

You still haven't come up with any clear definitions of where lines should be drawn.

[Walsingham]

Ender, I believe that I have made a clear distinction:

 

The law should prohibit any statement which endorses the execution of criminal acts. With steeper penalties being attached to those offences which are unlikely to ever become decriminalised. Namely offences of violence against person or property.

 

You should know me and my views better by now than to suggest I hold the actual perpetrators to be innocent. But it is futile to attack merely one part of the problem if you want it to be neutralised.

 

Moreover you are wrong to suggest that offences cannot be suppressed by prosecution of those who advocate them. There is a very great difference between an ideology being discussed in small groups behind closed doors and being discussed in public at mass rallies.

[alanschu]

Not knowing where the line specifically should be drawn doesn't mean that one cannot think that there should be one drawn.

 

I don't know where the line should be drawn, but I don't think someone should be allowed to perpetually follow someone around stating their intentions for killing them. Even if he doesn't act out on it, the psychological affects alone can be unnerving to the victim.

 

 

I also think you're more optimistic about free will than myself, so that could also explain a lot.

[EnderAndrew]

I'm not optimistic. I see people express bigotry and hatred every day. I hate it, and yet I feel they should have the right to express their opinion, because without it, I wouldn't have the freedom to express why I feel their bigotry is wrong.

 

To Walsingham:

 

Again, in your example, you wouldn't be able to express that you didn't care for a law, since arguing against it could be construed speaking in favor of breaking the law.

 

If you can't question the government you live under, you might as well live in toltarianism. What you suggest would destroy any semblance of democracy.

 

My original point that you mocked me for was that I live in arguably the most free nation in the world.

 

I don't believe you understand what freedom is. Freedom appears to be something you take for granted.

 

There are feminists who push for censorship of anything they deem porn, even though they can't define it. They want their agenda futhered by removing the rights of others. If we listen to them, then why not listen to others in the majority who would say remove rights from feminists since they are a minority?

 

Why censor free speech?

 

When discussing law you have to also recognize precedent. If you create a law saying that you can't say anything that might provoke unlawful behavior, then you establish a precedent that by saying anything offensive, you provoke violence.

 

How do you define what is offensive or provokative?

 

I keep asking these questions and you're not answering them.

 

But surely there is an answer, even if you can't find it, right?

 

You're so convinced you're right, but you can't demonstrate it or prove it. Well, you convinced me.

[Reveilled]

Doesn't the US have any slander laws?

[alanschu]

I'm not optimistic. I see people express bigotry and hatred every day. I hate it, and yet I feel they should have the right to express their opinion, because without it, I wouldn't have the freedom to express why I feel their bigotry is wrong.

 

I'm not talking about being optimistic that people are happy or whatnot.

 

I guess I should have phrased it more of the lines that you have more belief in free will than I do (as in the entity Free Will, as to the extent at which it exists).

 

 

I was disappointed you didn't address anything else brought up in my post though.

[Walsingham]

I should point out immmediately that at no point have I mocked you for saying you lived in a Free Society. I can undersatnd you feeling on the defensive, but don't accuse me of doing things I haven't done.

 

I think you are corrrect to point out that there are problems of interpretation. However, interpretation is why we have a judiciary. There was a debate in the House of Lords two months ago lamenting the fact that we seem unable to grasp the fact that we cannot legislate for every possible eventuality and interpretation. They were arguing that new laws should have included in them the spirit of the law which they were intended to serve.

 

We have laws against violence to the person, yet we do not pay any attention to claims by radical feminists that pornography is actually violence upon the women pictured. They attempt to get the law against violence applied in their favour and the judiciary and govt say 'no'. Simple. I am saying that laws about free speech can be applied in a similar way.

 

You are also - as you know - correct about a problem with advocating change to laws. I am in favour of legalising marijuana (though I don't use it). How am I to express the desire to change the law? It is a tough one, and as I say i think it must come down to the judiciary and public opinion.

 

However, I don't think you are being realistic when you say that advocation of a crime has nothing to do with its being committed.

 

EDIT: apologies for all my typing errors. The internet enabled machine has a different 'ergonomic' keyboard to my work machine.