Freedom of Speech.

[metadigital]

BTW, I've read some of Holy Blood, Holy Grail.  (my dad has his own copy)  It does appear convincing at first, but upon examination one can tell that it contains numerous historical errors.  I wouldn't take it too seriously.    For those of you who have read the Da Vinci Code, I'd also recommend "The Da Vinci Hoax" and "Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and the two sequels. I refrained from making any statements as to the veracity of their conclusions or the solidity of their researched papers.

 

The first half of The Messianic Legacy deals with what is known about the historical figure of Jesus, twin brother of Thomas (an Aramaic word for "Twin") and eldest brother (heir apparent) in the family.

 

What I find saddest, though, is the loss of Judas and his role in the great drama that apparently played out two millennia ago. Jesus said to Judas, his youngest brother, that he wanted him to do what he couldn't: be the bad guy. Not in the story. But for all history and for all time. Jesus apparently someone he could trust to deliver him to the authorities. Judas voluntarily took on the role.

 

(The main crux of the series of books is that Jesus didn't die on the Cross, which was apparently placed on private land (Peter's, who was pretty rich) where the body swap was made: some poor sap who became the anonymous subject of a snuff drama. Not so astonishing to any Muslims, though, as this assertion is confirmed in THEIR book of DIVINE TRUTH, specifically Book 4 (Women), near the end. But I digress.)

[Jediphile]

"Three editors and a staff writer at the New York Press, a weekly alternative newspaper, resigned after being ordered not to publish reprints of the Danish cartoons, former managing editor Tim Marchman told CNN. "We have no desire to be free speech martyrs, but it would have been nakedly hypocritical to avoid the same cartoons we'd criticized others for not running," editor-in-chief Harry Siegel, who also resigned, told colleagues in an e-mail."

 

Found at CNN

[Walsingham]

Let's kick this in a different direction. Going back a couple of years, Her Majesty's Prison Service and Home Secretary refuse serial killer the right to publish his autobiography without censoring it.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1881734.stm

 

The original crime is described here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2539231.stm

 

Were the aurthorities correct to deny this man his right to Freedom of Speech?

[Volourn]

No, they were wrong. Period.

 

The only time freedom of speehc should even be *considered* to be null and void is if someone is literally threatening someone with violence or is calling for violence. And, even in those situations, it should only be cosnidered not neccesarily voided unless the threat is real and not manufactured or hot air.

[Walsingham]

Your point is well made. But this guy dismembered people for fun. I especially like the way his lawyer says the Crown has no right to chop and change bits of his book. He chopped and changed people's organs alright. Why SHOULD his right to freedom of expression be excersied? His freedom of movement and association have been curtailed...

[WITHTEETH]

Some people who were put inm jail, might actually be innocent. Even prisoners deserve freedom of speech. People can analyze it how they want, if they want in my view.

[Volourn]

His crimes are a whole nother issue.

 

The book itself will not physically harm anyone. No one is forced to buy, or read it, or even believe what he writes.

 

He is a scumbag murder. And, he should be punished for his crimes (and, apparantly he has since he's in prison).

 

It shouldn't matter if he's a likeable person. The whole point of freedom of expression/speech is for everyone to have the right to say what they want even if *I* don't like it.

[Walsingham]

OK. But I still don't follow you entirely

 

- he can't go where he wants

- he can't see who he wants

- he can't eat what he wants

 

These are all freedoms any sane person would demand. Just like the freedom of speech. But we deprive him of those while allowing him the speech.

 

Withteeth: I know we have to accept a margin of error, but by and large people in jail are guilty. They just don't run news stories about the fact that a guy convicted twenty years ago is stilll guilty as charged. I have concernes about the death penalty, but not anything that is less than lethal.

[Volourn]

"- he can't go where he wants

- he can't see who he wants

- he can't eat what he wants"

 

The first two should be obvious. As a convicted murderer, he's proven to be a physical threat to others. Obviously, him writing a book will not be a danger in killing someone.

 

As for not being able to eat what he wants; that's simply a by product of being in prison and having to have a cook to do a mass cook for all the prisoners. It's not like they really mass cook steak everyday.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Volourn

[metadigital]

Your point is well made. But this guy dismembered people for fun. I especially like the way his lawyer says the Crown has no right to chop and change bits of his book. He chopped and changed people's organs alright. Why SHOULD his right to freedom of expression be excersied? His freedom of movement and association have been curtailed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nope. He might write something that brings harm onto the families of the victims, like, I dunno, a human cookbook?

 

He should not expect ANY "freedom", he has abused his rights and they are no longer a "right", they are a privilege to be metered out as determined by society (or the appointed official).

 

I'm all for ejecting people who are a danger to society from it: not just sticking them "out of harms way" incarcerated in a gaol: stick 'em on an island

[Cantousent]

Free society protects the rights of citizens. When citizens foresake the laws, they relinquish their rights. It is a balance that society must maintain lest the division between democracy and anarchy disappear.

[Nartwak]

Deportation to Australia.

[metadigital]

Nup. They're full. You can't get into Australia anymore, unless you've got big bucks or you work in a critical community vocation, like teaching or nursing or koala-combing.

 

Of course, there are a number of other places that have less stringent immigration laws, like Burma and Malawi.

[metadigital]

Congress Made Wikipedia Changes

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday February 09, @01:08PM

from the revisionist-history dept.

Dr Occult writes "BBC news is reporting misuse of Wikipedia by politicians for 'polishing' their images. The article on President Bush has been altered so many times - not just from within Congress - that Wikipedia's volunteer monitors have had to block further 'editing'." From the article: "Wikipedia says the controversy raises questions about whether it is ethical for those with a vested interest in the subject to edit entries about it. It said the Congressional computer network has been blocked from editing for brief periods on a number of occasions in the last six months due to the inappropriate contributions."

 

 

linkie

 

 

)

[Lucius]

LOLOLOLOLLIPOP!

[Jediphile]

Nope. He might write something that brings harm onto the families of the victims, like, I dunno, a human cookbook?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And who would publish that? You seem to have the impression that censorship needs to be applied in case this person expresses something harmful, but the truth is that to be heard he needs to appeal to the media or a publisher, and they usually have ethical standards. Even if they do not, they would think twice about publishing something that will tarnish their image or get them into trouble with the law. Therefore I find that censoring this man's right to free speech does not present much of a problem where it concerns his victims or their families.

 

On a related note (which wasn't brought up, so I will), we might argue that such a book (or whatever form) would inspire violent actions by people enraged or encouraged in some form of perversion. However, I do not accept that as relevant point - if you do something harmful, then *you* are to blame for it - you don't get to shift the blame to some book you read or some program you saw on tv. There is a sad tendency to shift the blame these days, so that nobody is ever truly responsible for anything they do, like "I read <insert book here>, and that's why I killed him - it was not my fault". Nonsense, I say - people are allowed to use the insides of their heads too... <_<

 

He should not expect ANY "freedom", he has abused his rights and they are no longer a "right", they are a privilege to be metered out as determined by society (or the appointed official).

 

I'm all for ejecting people who are a danger to society from it: not just sticking them "out of harms way" incarcerated in a gaol: stick 'em on an island

[SteveThaiBinh]

I don't like the idea of someone being denied the right to freedom of speech, but I'm not happy about the implications if that right is conceded. What if a convicted criminal can't find a publisher for his autobiography? Does he then have a right to publish it on the internet? Are prisons suddenly obliged to give him internet access so that he can publish his work? Can he update it weekly? There are prisoners who could use such liberties to gather a following and do immense harm to society.

 

Prisoners have a right to meet a lawyer in private and discuss anything they wish with him. So long as that right is protected, I'm less worried about their freedom of speech being curtailed in other ways. With respect to Nilsen and his autobiography, I would have solved it in this way: he should be allow to publish it (though not profit from this), but the prison service should be allowed to delete passages in the way that classified documents have deletions when they are published. On Nilsen's death, the full document should be published, as this is in the public interest.

[Walsingham]

Steve, without meaning to be preachy, that is precisely what the Prison Service wanted to do.

 

Meta, and Eldar, I'm with you, and you express my feelings better than I can. Volourn, I agree that protecting the public is why he is locked away, but as has been said once convicetd the balance goes from erring on the side of the individual's rights to protecting society. If there is any possibility that the publication could hurt the victim's relations further, or inspire others to act, then it should be censored.

 

Jediphile, I am sorry but publishers like any other business have NO social conscience. I also take exception with your assertion that being personally responsible means that no-one else has any impact on your behaviour. I agree that one should not be able to weasel out of taking responsiblity by pointing at some book, game or film. But I also think that the publishers of that book game or film bear varying responsibility.

 

Linked to the above point, I might remind the assembly that the film the Clockwork Orange was censored by its creator, not by UK govt. for fear it would inspire violence.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It's not the same, Mr. Walsingham, sir. The Prison Service seemed to want the right to withhold the entire manuscript on principle, rather than just to edit parts that were dangerous or damaging. They also wanted the right to withhold the manuscript or parts of it from Nilsen himself, rather than, as I said, censor it for publication.

[Moose]

Let's kick this in a different direction. Going back a couple of years, Her Majesty's Prison Service and Home Secretary refuse serial killer the right to publish his autobiography without censoring it.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1881734.stm

 

The original crime is described here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2539231.stm

 

Were the aurthorities correct to deny this man his right to Freedom of Speech?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I believe the reason for this was the Crown sees it unfit for anyone to profit on crime. His book would sell a lot better with all the gore in it, and well I for one wouldn't like to see a mass murderer rewarded by the publics morbid curiousity.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I believe the reason for this was the Crown sees it unfit for anyone to profit on crime. His book would sell a lot better with all the gore in it, and well I for one wouldn't like to see a mass murderer rewarded by the publics morbid curiousity.

That wasn't really an issue here. There was a scandal about this kind of thing some years ago, and there's now a law in the UK that prisoners cannot profit from their crimes in this way. Nilsen was going to give all the proceeds of the book's sales to charity.

[Moose]

Mmmm, but you can argue that charity is then profiting from crime.

 

So it's all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Mmmm, but you can argue that charity is then profiting from crime.

You can indeed. Many charities would be reluctant to take money from such sources, but I think some would. Prisoners lose many rights due to their actions, but should they also lose all right to make any kind of amends for their actions? That would be harsh. If he's willing to do something that benefits society, that gives no reward to himself, and that does no harm to society, I think it's OK. On the other hand, if you see the notoriety or cheap thrills he gets from publishing his lurid account as a reward, I can see how you might want to prevent that.

So it's all right to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, although that's not exactly the same issue.

[Walsingham]

I think that what might be more appropriate in cases like this is that persons who have legitimate cause to access his writing can apply to do so, just like a restricted report on defence or the security services. Thus investigating officers and criminologists can ebenfit from the insights of his revelations, without the idle and curious and the victims being affected. But this is still censorship.

 

Tying it back into the cartoon issue, are we applying consistent rules?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Tying it back into the cartoon issue, are we applying consistent rules?

It's a good question.

 

On what grounds are we restricting the freedom of speech of the convicted criminal? Is it because of who he is (and what he's done), or because of what he has written?

 

If it's because of who he is, then there's no way the rules can be applied consistently, but also no reason why they need to be. Criminals are a special case, and society has the right to restrict the freedoms of those who break its rules and endanger society.

 

If it is the content that we are objecting to, then it depends on the criteria the Prison Service is using to censor material (whether by withholding it for experts only, or deleting passages from a manuscript). I'd speculate that they're only using existing laws that apply to everyone, laws against incitement to murder, libel, indecency or (I think ) causing harm or distress to relatives. In that case, it should be possible to be consistent, and the same laws that govern what a prisoner can publish apply to what a newspaper or anyone else can publish. There's a big difference in who is applying the law, though.