Wow, I thought this kind of thing was done away with years ago

[kandrathe]

You don't seem to get the point. Legalizing abortion is not the same as forcing someone to have an abortion. The liberal world view allows religious people not to have an abortion if they get raped. The liberal view however allows people to have an abortion if they want to (with certain rules of course).

No, you didn't get my point. People are being arrested for hate speech for peacefully holding a sign which does nothing more than quote a Bible verse. So does the liberal world view allow people to speak out against things they disagree with?

No liberal will ever force a religious person to do certain things. But the other way around is all to common. Because you are living in a society where this kind of behavior is the norm doesn't make it OK.

You should wake up and look around.

http://www.akegreen.org/

I might not agree with what Ake Green says, but I'll defend anyone's right to voice their opinion without being thrown in jail. This is not an isolated case. Every year, more and more "political correctness" and "thought police" laws get enacted. Where does it end? Not well.

[Jester]

I might not agree with what Ake Green says, but I'll defend anyone's right to voice their opinion without being thrown in jail. This is not an isolated case. Every year, more and more "political correctness" and "thought police" laws get enacted. Where does it end? Not well.

Does it really not end well? Do we actually know that? Because all the societies walking down this road you find so horrible (I'm not a huge fan either, really) seem to be doing fine. The religious right gets in a twist about not being able to flog whatever racist/sexist/anti-gay/etcetera opinions they want, but by and large, they are left alone to practice their religion (which is hopefully does not revolve entirely around their most objectionable beliefs) and life goes on.

I'm with you that freedom of speech should take precedence. (Although abortion protesters do have to understand that other people have rights as well, and there is a line between voicing your opinion and harassing someone.) But has this really caused any serious problems? Is it likely to? I don't see it.

You'll note - the case against Ake Green was eventually dismissed, and it doesn't sound like he spend a single day in prison. Remember when the right was all in arms about the Mark Steyn case up in Canada? That also went nowhere. Courts exist for a reason. It seems like most of the cases you bring up end in exactly that way - remember the Pace, Florida principal?

-Jester

[eppie]

No, you didn't get my point. People are being arrested for hate speech for peacefully holding a sign which does nothing more than quote a Bible verse.

Well that is wrong.
But in Europe this doesn't happen, that is why I probably wasn't aware of that.

[kandrathe]

Well that is wrong.
But in Europe this doesn't happen, that is why I probably wasn't aware of that.

Well, except for Geert Wilders... And, then there is Gregorius Nekschot, and probably a bunch of others by now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

I think what Geert Wilders has done is wrong, but in the same way I think what Maplethorpe did is wrong. We need to figure out how not to bring attention to people who are attention whores, and only out there trying to shock people.

[kandrathe]

Funny how they usually seem to be prosecuted for "adhering to their belief systems" when that involves denying everyone else's rights. Like you say - abortion (denying women that right) "traditional" marriage and gay rights (denying rights to gays). It's very handy to have a state that has historically upheld the beliefs of one's own dogma - how difficult it must be to have to have that comforting protection stripped away in favour of people you think are sinners - but thankfully, sin is not a legal category.

We are not talking about obstruction, but merely voicing an opinion. I also support the rights of leftist protesters to voice their opinions. There has been a continual peaceful protest here in Minnesota outside a defense contractor site since the Vietnam war, and only occasionally does anyone get arrested (usually for trespass). I do believe that protesters who try to create "barriers" should be arrested. In a public debate, all the voices should be heard. I don't promote rude behavior, but I certainly don't want to outlaw it either. You might as well also pass a law banning bad grammar, or bad diction.

[Jester]

We are not talking about obstruction, but merely voicing an opinion. I also support the rights of leftist protesters to voice their opinions. There has been a continual peaceful protest here in Minnesota outside a defense contractor site since the Vietnam war, and only occasionally does anyone get arrested (usually for trespass). I do believe that protesters who try to create "barriers" should be arrested. In a public debate, all the voices should be heard. I don't promote rude behavior, but I certainly don't want to outlaw it either. You might as well also pass a law banning bad grammar, or bad diction.

In general, I agree with you. Free speech is important enough that I'm willing to go further than the countries I live in to defend it. UK libel and slander laws, for instance, are completely absurd, and have a major chilling effect on everyone except the tabloids, who flaunt the fact that they're not worth suing.

However, many countries are also quite protective of the idea that people have a right to live their lives free of harassment. Voicing your opinion is usually protected, but "voicing your opinion" in the sense of crowding around abortion clinics and shouting at women and doctors that they are murderers is crossing a line from peaceful protest to some species of verbal assault. At what point does this become obstruction? What about the implied threat of violence against abortion clinics that becomes real every few years? These protests don't just create debate. They can also create fear.

Likewise, many countries are very touchy about the history of disadvantaged groups. Germany is, for historically obvious reasons, but many other European countries are as well, and therefore have laws against inciting hatred for those groups. To them, this is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" - free speech too far. Once gays are included in the protected groups, that puts a certain stripe of Christians in a tough position - but not more than anti-racism laws would create problems for an old-school "Jews killed Christ" or "Cursed sons of Ham" Christian in the past.

I stand with the right to speak. But I understand why countries pass these laws, and the results aren't really that objectionable, except in principle.

-Jester

[Zenda]

Well, except for Geert Wilders... And, then there is Gregorius Nekschot, and probably a bunch of others by now...

You are mixing things up there. Both Wilders and Nekschot were never arrested for holding signs with bible verses. Wilders hasn't even been arrested (yet). In fact, it was the Dutch Christian political party that tried to expand blasphemy laws in response to Wilders' Fitna movie. Nekschot was arrested (for 30 hours) for some of his cartoons (which insulted the Dutch Christian Prime Minister, among others, and made many Jews feel threatened). And no, there have been no others.

Btw, did you know that Wilders' political "party" does not accept members? That people are allowed to vote for him, but not to have any say in what he wants for them? Calling on freedom of speech is just a tactic for that man, like everything else he does.

And did you know that Nekschot also writes under the name 'Dolf Histler'? Free speech is nice, but some people take it as an excuse to shock and provoke, for no gain but personal satisfaction (and hits on his website, ofcourse).

What about the implied threat of violence against abortion clinics that becomes real every few years? These protests don't just create debate. They can also create fear.

Some go even further...

In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least nine people, including five doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort

[eppie]

Well, except for Geert Wilders... And, then there is Gregorius Nekschot, and probably a bunch of others by now...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

I think what Geert Wilders has done is wrong, but in the same way I think what Maplethorpe did is wrong. We need to figure out how not to bring attention to people who are attention whores, and only out there trying to shock people.

Sorry, I read for where it was supposed to be or. Hate speech can get you put to trial, if it can get you convicted I am not sure. Geert Wilders wants however to make speeches from imams (which he calls hate speeches) illegal...so I don't see the problem with blaming him of the same.

And don't forget that up till now only religious groups are protected by the law from 'insulting' in Holland, and that is absurd.....in that I agree with Wilders......of course I wouldn't use hate speech to talk about that....and Wilders does. I just don't believe allah or god exists.....I think Wilders also doesn't but he goes on to insult these deities...which is stupid if you don't even believe in them, this means you just do it to hurt people.

[kandrathe]

Sorry, I read for where it was supposed to be or. Hate speech can get you put to trial, if it can get you convicted I am not sure. Geert Wilders wants however to make speeches from imams (which he calls hate speeches) illegal...so I don't see the problem with blaming him of the same.

And don't forget that up till now only religious groups are protected by the law from 'insulting' in Holland, and that is absurd.....in that I agree with Wilders......of course I wouldn't use hate speech to talk about that....and Wilders does. I just don't believe allah or god exists.....I think Wilders also doesn't but he goes on to insult these deities...which is stupid if you don't even believe in them, this means you just do it to hurt people.

I really don't care what his reason is, nor should it matter. I want him to have the right to insult the Christians, French, Jews, Scandinavians, or the Muslims. I want him to have the freedom to say or insult whomever he pleases. Also, these Imams should also have the freedom to say whatever they like, and as long as they are not directly inciting violence we should ignore it. If we take their rights from them, we begin to police peoples thoughts. And then, we all lose. And saying that he wants to take away the rights from Islamic people should also not matter. We ignore him too.

Here's the catch, right. If Geert or some Imam says, "You should go blow up that building." And, then someone does it, then they may be considered to be an accomplice, or at least partially liable for inciting violence. But, there is a difference between saying that Islam is akin to Nazism, and calling for violence to be committed against persons or property. I'm not sure about there, but here it is illegal to make terrorist threats, or to incite violence.

It has been in the news here as well, where some talking head has suggested that we'd be better off if Bush, or Obama, or someone else were assassinated. I think this is borderline on free speech. But, it probably should slide unless someone actually follows through on the suggestion, and then that talking head should probably be held partially liable for inciting violence.

[--Pete]

Hi,

kandrathe, your last post seems to be breaking the reply function. You seem to have lost a bracket. Please fix so we can keep the discussion going.

Thanks,

--Pete

[kandrathe]

kandrathe, your last post seems to be breaking the reply function. You seem to have lost a bracket. Please fix so we can keep the discussion going.

Oops. Sorry, that bracket seems to disappear on me frequently.

[kandrathe]

In general, I agree with you. Free speech is important enough that I'm willing to go further than the countries I live in to defend it. UK libel and slander laws, for instance, are completely absurd, and have a major chilling effect on everyone except the tabloids, who flaunt the fact that they're not worth suing.

However, many countries are also quite protective of the idea that people have a right to live their lives free of harassment. Voicing your opinion is usually protected, but "voicing your opinion" in the sense of crowding around abortion clinics and shouting at women and doctors that they are murderers is crossing a line from peaceful protest to some species of verbal assault. At what point does this become obstruction? What about the implied threat of violence against abortion clinics that becomes real every few years? These protests don't just create debate. They can also create fear.

Once you cross the line from protest into actual threat, or violence (even if it is obstructionist), then you are no longer speaking, but acting in a manner that is no longer civil. It seems it would be very unproductive to attempt to protect people from being afraid.

Likewise, many countries are very touchy about the history of disadvantaged groups. Germany is, for historically obvious reasons, but many other European countries are as well, and therefore have laws against inciting hatred for those groups. To them, this is "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" - free speech too far. Once gays are included in the protected groups, that puts a certain stripe of Christians in a tough position - but not more than anti-racism laws would create problems for an old-school "Jews killed Christ" or "Cursed sons of Ham" Christian in the past.

I stand with the right to speak. But I understand why countries pass these laws, and the results aren't really that objectionable, except in principle.

Although, as we've seen, more classes of people become protected where even civil discussion, satire, and humor become impossible due to the fear of prosecution. We all know what is rude, crude, and distasteful, but we don't need to legislate it away.

[kandrathe]

You are mixing things up there. Both Wilders and Nekschot were never arrested for holding signs with bible verses. Wilders hasn't even been arrested (yet). In fact, it was the Dutch Christian political party that tried to expand blasphemy laws in response to Wilders' Fitna movie. Nekschot was arrested (for 30 hours) for some of his cartoons (which insulted the Dutch Christian Prime Minister, among others, and made many Jews feel threatened). And no, there have been no others.

Wilders was arrested at Heathrow. You are correct that neither of these individuals were arrested for holding signs. I'm making a general statement about all western democracies, where freedom still has some HOPE. I would extend your struggle to even Ben Ali's controversy, and the assassination of Theo Van Gogh. Free speech is under assault in the Netherlands as it is here. I'm looking at things like Barney Franks attempts to find a way to arrest (punish) Hannah Giles, and James O'Keefe for exposing Acorn's seedy underbelly. It's come down to an attitude by some in power who don't like what is being said, and so they are attempting to create the means to silence it. Another example would be the actions and plans of Mark Lloyd of the FCC in the US, against conservative talk radio.

Btw, did you know that Wilders' political "party" does not accept members? That people are allowed to vote for him, but not to have any say in what he wants for them? Calling on freedom of speech is just a tactic for that man, like everything else he does.

Somebody must have voted for him, and so you get what you deserve, just as we do with our crack pot political persons.

And did you know that Nekschot also writes under the name 'Dolf Histler'? Free speech is nice, but some people take it as an excuse to shock and provoke, for no gain but personal satisfaction (and hits on his website, ofcourse).

I don't know much about Nekschot, other than he was arrested for drawing cartoons. I did a quick google, and they seem crass at best. But, it is irrelevant to his freedom to draw cartoons, however offensive they may be to some people. If they are published, then people can object to the publisher or boycott the publication and the advertisers in the publication. I still think he should have the freedom to be a jerk, or even a racist jerk.

Some go even further...

In my city in 2008, during the Republican National Convention, a group of people threw blood and urine on delegates. There were some others that were arrested before the event, and some because they had planned a series of bombings with molotov cocktails. A person may passionately believe that abortion is murder, and still strongly oppose domestic terrorism. But, some people go too far. In fact, Obama's good friend Bill Ayers, was a domestic terrorist. Can we talk about the ALF?

[Jester]

In fact, Obama's good friend Bill Ayers, was a domestic terrorist.

Obama's acquaintance and fellow community member (Good friend? We've had this discussion before. Not buying it.) was a pretty harmless domestic terrorist almost forty years ago, during a very different era. He hasn't been involved in any terrorist activities since Obama was barely a teenager, and has been a peaceful and respectable member of the Chicago intellectual community for decades.

However, as is perfectly obvious, neither Bill Ayers nor anyone else has the right to break the law (even without casualties) as part of their protest.* When intimidation, fraud, violence and even assassination are a part of the protest toolkit, then I don't think it's unreasonable to put some commonsense limits on the types of protest allowed. I cannot support censoring the message, but there's no good reason why that message has to be conveyed within spitting distance of an abortion clinic, where it can create a strong chilling effect on people trying to live their lives and exercise their rights (this is, no doubt, the idea).

-Jester

* I have no problem with civil disobedience in protest of unjust laws. But deliberately breaking a law to make a point is still illegal, and not all causes are righteous.

[Zenda]

Wilders was arrested at Heathrow.

Only if you believe sites like this. Fact is, however, that Geert Wilders was simply not allowed to enter the UK after a ban from the Home Secretary. Had he been arrested, it would propably have been for ignoring this ban. But even that didn't happen.

If they are published, then people can object to the publisher or boycott the publication and the advertisers in the publication. I still think he should have the freedom to be a jerk, or even a racist jerk..

The cartoons were published on Nekschot's own website, and that's what got him into trouble, ofcourse. Not the drawing itself. I would think that to be obvious, but it depends on how you want to see things, I suppose.

Btw, does this mean that next time you or someone else feels that I'm being anti-American, you will be complaining to Bolty instead of me?

[kandrathe]

Btw, does this mean that next time you or someone else feels that I'm being anti-American, you will be complaining to Bolty instead of me?

Not me. I want you to be free.

[kandrathe]

Obama's acquaintance and fellow community member (Good friend? We've had this discussion before. Not buying it.) was a pretty harmless domestic terrorist almost forty years ago, during a very different era. He hasn't been involved in any terrorist activities since Obama was barely a teenager, and has been a peaceful and respectable member of the Chicago intellectual community for decades.

You don't have a suspicious bone in your body... do you? I find it curious that in the past 10 months, he's been to see the President twice. You know, being that he's not a friend. Hmmm, yes, respectable. I don't know many respectable people who've blown up three of their friends, and planted at least three other bombs. The only difference between this guy and Tim McVeigh, was that Tim was successful.

[Jester]

You don't have a suspicious bone in your body... do you?

If by "suspicious" you mean "paranoid," then no. You, on the other hand, have other notions, which tend to lead you into some very bizarre corners. Like, for instance, on this topic. You'll note that one of them is even listed as "Willliam A. Ayers", while the former Weatherman is William C. Ayers.

Will this quell your paranoia? I really doubt it. But it sure doesn't go any further towards convincing me.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Will this quell your paranoia? I really doubt it. But it sure doesn't go any further towards convincing me.

OMG! I feel duped. I bet they put those in hoping for an insane reaction. Me = busted. :)

But... If I see Mickey M. Mouse then we'll know something is henkie!

[eppie]

I really don't care what his reason is, nor should it matter. I want him to have the right to insult the Christians, French, Jews, Scandinavians, or the Muslims. I want him to have the freedom to say or insult whomever he pleases. Also, these Imams should also have the freedom to say whatever they like, and as long as they are not directly inciting violence we should ignore it. If we take their rights from them, we begin to police peoples thoughts. And then, we all lose. And saying that he wants to take away the rights from Islamic people should also not matter. We ignore him too.

Here's the catch, right. If Geert or some Imam says, "You should go blow up that building." And, then someone does it, then they may be considered to be an accomplice, or at least partially liable for inciting violence. But, there is a difference between saying that Islam is akin to Nazism, and calling for violence to be committed against persons or property. I'm not sure about there, but here it is illegal to make terrorist threats, or to incite violence.

It has been in the news here as well, where some talking head has suggested that we'd be better off if Bush, or Obama, or someone else were assassinated. I think this is borderline on free speech. But, it probably should slide unless someone actually follows through on the suggestion, and then that talking head should probably be held partially liable for inciting violence.

Kandrathe, I understand your point here. But I also think you use your own vague line to separate what is right and what is wrong.

If I am standing outside in the street and start insulting random people using deseases, their family, their faith, there is a good chance that I will get my but kicked. Because for some people insults will hurt more, I guess more than half of the population would agree that the person that hit me was right to do so. In other words, a law could be made in which it is legal to hit somebody when he insults you.
And who are you to draw a line between hitting somebody and insulting somebody....and if you don't would it be allowed to hit somebody just once? Or for times, and is kicking OK? And biting?


The difference between the freedom of speech and teh right to insult somebody is also a thin line, a border that will be different for different people. I'd much rather have a border between those two things, and a continuous discussion about where exactly that limit is than a border between insulting and hitting.

Geert Wilders, most of the time tries to stay on the good side of the freedom of speech/insult border while people like Nekschot (you know that that is the dutch word for the execution method the germans used to use in WO2?) and van Gogh clearly only want to provoke and insult. (and van Gogh clearly did this to become famous and rich). Again, the murder on van Gogh was a hideous crime and it is good that the guy who did it is put away for life. But we shouldn't become all nervous and say that freedom of speech doesn't exist anymore in Holland. This was one case of a very annoying person that was constantly saying horrible things, so in that sense the crime was comparable to any crime passionel or bar fight. Van Gogh's murder had nothing to do with politics, it was just an awful crime.


Geert Wilders on the other hand, mainly invents threats on his life.....every threat, or every attempt to arrest him yields him another few seats in parliament....so he makes sure he will create enough such diversions so that 1, he will be always in the news, and 2, will never have to discuss his political plans very indept. He continuously searches for the borderline between freedom of speech and insult.
One big example of what makes him tick, is the fact that his party (that made 'freedom of speech one of there spear heads) voted against the resolution to reprimand Berlusconi (see my other thread)....in other words, for state controlled media.