Paul Harvey's take on prayer in public/Xmas (In general, a "freedom of speech" topic)

quote:

---

Your example of the KKK at the football game is not valid because the KKK are presumably not the organizers of the game and therefore would be disturbing the peace

---

The example is entirely valid. If a supporter of the KKK was the originator of the event, according to your argument if they came up and expounded overtly racist hate-speech you would just sit there unmoved.

quote:

---

I chose not to go to the event.

---

Irrelevant - it was a hypothetical.Secondly, are ball-games as specific a venue as a KKK rally? Are only christians allowed to watch ballgames, or is there some reason that only christians are expected to come? If not, then ramming your bloodthirsty religion down the audiences throat is at the very least impolite.Now answer the question. If you innocently went along to a ballgame, which to your surprise happened to be run by the KKK, you will sit there unmoved as they propounded their supremacism, and think nothing of it, correct?

quote:

---

You are still failing the common sense test.

---

No, YOU are failing the common sense test. I know this because I saw your location and looked up http://www.1st-vets.us and found the following:U.S. Army Values# Integrity - Do what’s right, legally and morally.So why are you in Baghdad as a criminal murderer, doing the wrong thing both legally and morally?Its not really surprising you have problems with basic reasoning, now is it.

quote:

---

No, killing the bad guy in combat is not as criminal as murder.

---

But the US army is not there fighting a war - it has carried out an internationally illegal occupation, and the US and allied soldiers are the bad guys. So you are right to say that Iraqi's are entirely free to kill the American and allied bandits infesting their country, and this would not be murder, but any killing you commit is in fact murder as you have no right to be there and no right to commit acts of violence.Now I ask again why you have not upheld your "US Army Values" to do he right thing both morally and legally?

quote:

---

I'm still wondering how the KKK hold football games for the general public.

---

I'm still wondering why you wont answer the question.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-05-2005 09:28 AM

quote:

---

Because it doesn't pass the common sense test. Common sense tells us that the KKK do not hold football games for the general public.

---

Common sense says IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL. you should be able to apply your principles consistently to a hypothetical scenario.

quote:

---

1. The majority of insurgents are not Iraqis, and are killing Iraqis. The insurgents drive VBIEDs into the middle of Iraqi school kids, then detonate.

---

Thats nonsense - the US itself reported there were only an expected "couple of hundred" combatatants in Fallujah of which only a few tens were thought to be of foreign origin. There is absolutely zero credible evidence that Iraq is awash with external "insurgents", and plenty of indication that the overhwleming majority of resistance comes from Iraqis directly.And don;t give me sob-stpories about what these imaginary "insurgents" do - you drop bombs on school kids from 15,000 feet and that is in no way morally superior to doing it with a car bomb.

quote:

---

2. As to us having no right to be here, we are now here as guests of the Iraqi Interim Govt. We are simply here to help them stabalize thier country.

---

The iraqi interim government has neither credibility nor recognition; it is an American puppet administration with absolutely zero indepdnandace. It is nothing more than an arm of the US conquest - a factor which Iraqi's well recognise.

quote:

---

Let me inform you as to the nature of the insurgency.

---

There is no INSURGENCY. There is a NATIONAL LIBERATION STRUGGLE.

quote:

---

They routinely target Iraqis.

---

Thats utterly unsurprising. The French resistance targetted those who collaborated witih the occupying Germans. Those Iraqis who collaborate with the US are traitors to their state, after all.

quote:

---

They cut people's heads off, film it, then post it on the internet.

---

Oh boo hoo hoo. Am I supposed to be horrified that they posted it on the internet? Don't be absurd, have you never seen military propaganda before? And of course the cutting off of heads is in no way more shocking, perverse or depraved than the butchery inflicted on Fallujah.

quote:

---

They blow up kids.

---

So do you. Thats what happens when you bomb cities full of civilians, you know. They have kids in them. You just don;t give a shit and refuse to count them or grant them any human dignity, just wishing them away as "collateral damage".

quote:

---

They don't care about Iraq or Iraqis, they are here to to kill the easiest target of opportunity in order to gain a media victory.

---

Of course they are - becuase claiming that media victory shows a) their effectiveness, and b) that they care so much about Iraq and Iraqis - unsurprising seeing as they ARE Iraqi's - that they place their lives at risk to free Iraq from the occupation.

quote:

---

I will commit acts of violence against these types any day of the week.

---

Yes, you would kill people defending their homes and their families from a brutal occupying power because you are a murderer in an army of criminals. I hope every American and allied soldier involved in this atrocity will be brought before the Hague to answer indictments for War Crimes.Edit: I note that you have still failed to explain why you are not living up to your army values and doing the right thing, legally and morally. Morally, it would be right for you to refuse to serve in an army of illegal occupation, fighting against people only defending themselves. Legally, you are personally responsible for your actions, and to refuse to obey illegal orders. The orders to invade Iraq were illegal, and you are personally bound to refuse to follow those orders. And if you do NOT refuse to follow them, you are personally culpable for the crimes you commit in Iraq.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-05-2005 11:12 AM

quote:

---

No one is saying that you have to like it or accept it; just that it is not breaking the law hurting your feeling by hearing the free speech of another person.

---

We are not talking just about hurt feelings - we are talking about hate speech and the denigration and dehmanisation of others. And this applies to religious speech too, because these claims are implicit in the denigration of other faiths as false gods etc.If you wish to provide venues for this sort of abuse you are welcome to do so. As long as you understand that from my perspective it makes you backward and uncivilised.

quote:

---

It two different situations, the precise same words might be directly aimed at one person by another. In one context they might be harmless, even friendly chatter. In another context, they might rightfully be considered a harmful threat. And these two contexts might well blur into each other.

---

Thats the same bullshit that results in two white boys calling each other "nigger" because contextually it has been defanged as neither of them are black and thus threatened by the denigrating term. But what it also does is keep the denigrating term in circulation as a denigrating term, and the users commitment to keep using that term in its fully denigrating meaning.Context is not everything, but it is a huge part I agree. And it is precisely becuase of the CONTEXT of a PUBLIC EVENT - regardless of who payed for it or whose land it happens to be occurring on (IIRC all land is alienable by the state anyway so private property is really just an open ended loan from the state afer all) - that makes both prayer and racist abuse in that PUBLIC EVENT totally unacceptable.

quote:

---

Sure. I believe that the people who participate in deliberate hate speech are backwards and uncivilized. I also feel that their right to assemble and practice their backwards and uncivilized hate speech is and should continue to be protected by the Constitution.

---

Is the fact that it is protected by some elderly document meant to be some kind of clinching argument? I'm pretty sure the Salic Law is in a charter somewhere but that does not mean I am obliged to accept that women should not inherit property.What you are saying is, you are perfectly happy with someone calling for "race war", the limitation of democracy, to forcible repatriation, all the usual stuff, and you are pleased, nay proud, top protect that speech.Well fine. Then I hold you responsible for the speech you are proud to protect. If you are willing to defend this hateful and antidemocratic nonsense, then it is YOU is is barbaric as far as I am concerned. You are serving as an enabler and a facilitator of hate speech by offering it such protection.

quote:

---

It should still not be illegal. I don't want the government telling anyone what to think or say, as long as there is no physical threat involved or intimidation. It is not the government's job.

---

Think <> say
say <> public pronouncementHow can there not possibly be inti idation in a call for repatriation or violence or describing someone as a lesser being, subhuman. Of COURSE hate speech is intimidating - that is one of its purposes.And it most certainly IS the governments job to protect its citizens. This line of argument amounts to saying black people are not entitled to the protection of the state, because the state is perfectly happy for people to call for a retraction of protection from violence for these people, or for the withdrawal of citzenship, or some other significant sanction.Organised public hate-mongering is a clear and present danger to human life and it is most certainly the very purpose of the democratic state to protect its citizens.

quote:

---

So, you passed very oppressive speech laws. I'd be very uncomfortable with that in America.

---

No, very LIBERAL laws that protect people according to their status as HUMAN BEINGS, and not according to their status as OWNERS OF PROPERTY. And I'm quite sure that many Americans would be uncomfortable with so liberal a measure.

quote:

---

Remember, the US is made up of 50 states, and each state has many laws which are unique to each state. The Founders wanted the individual states to remain as independent from the federal government as possible.

---

The founders are dead and what they wanted is utterly unimportant. They were just people, not saints or polymaths whose insight should somehow be priviliged across the centuries. Thats no better than theists privileging their prophets regardless of how badly out of date and manifestly backward their claims are.

quote:

---

If someone is angry at their black ancestors being enslaved by white slave owners, do they have the right to make a sculpture showing a white man being lynched by a bunch of black men? Wouldn't that offend and demean the whites?

---

It might bbut that may not be relevant. The contexts are very different where whites are a mahority and occupy most of the positions of power. A verbal threat therefore stands a reasonable chance of being translated into action, wheras a single statement by a member of a not-very-empowered minority carries no such danger.

quote:

---

But should the name callers be arrested and prosecuted by the government?

---

Racist abuse <> name calling. Calling someone a dweeb is not the same as suggesting someone is sub-human.

quote:

---

With great freedom comes great responsibility.

---

The problem is the manifest failure to uphold that responsibility. And if you cannot be held accountable, how can you be said to be responsible?

quote:

---

I guess the Founders didn't want the federal government to be a parental figure to it's citizens.

---

The "founders" are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.

quote:

---

I would not want a homogeneous society, where I was told what I could or couldn't say.

---

And I don't want a society that considers racist abuse to be acceptable.

"God save the queen, her fascist regime
It made you a moron a potential h bomb!God save the queen, she ain’t no human being
There is no future in england’s dreaming"
--
Not as such, as far as I am aware. The pistols were arrested for:"The charges run like this (approximately): Malcolm McLaren/'Using Insulting words likely to provoke a breach of the peace': Vivien Westwood/'Obstructing a policeman': Sophie Richmond and Alex McDowell/'Assault': Debbie and Tracy/'Obstruction': Ben Kelly and Chris Walsh/'Obstruction': Jose Esquibel/'Threatening behaviour': Jamie Reid/'Assault'. All have denied the alleged charges, and have been released on bail/surety until their case will be heard."This has not prevented the Sex Pistols mutilated image of the queen being the most reproduced item of brit pop art, nor the rerelease of the single going to number 1 again in 2000. Compare and contrast with "you have to respect the office of the president".This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 09:07 AM

quote:

---

Actually, compared to the US, the UK is quite a lot more restrictive WRT freedom of speech. IT is much easier to convict someone of slander or libel in the UK than in the US, for example, because your laws regarding acceptable speech are quite a lot more restrictive.

---

Actually that is wrong. the problem with british Libel laws - and it is a very sever problem - is that it places the burden of proof on the person who issued the alleged libel to prove that the claim is true. It is the only case on which the burden of proof lies on the defendant, and accordingly is very unlikely to succeed. This is especially the case when the alleged libeller is poor and the alleged victim wealthy, as court proceedings can be dragged out to the point that the defendant goes bankrupt.However I'm pleased to say that this provision in English law is much criticised and under attack and the government has agreed to look into the issue.

quote:

---

Well, perhaps in the US people feel freer to speak up and counter that kind of bullshit themselves instead of waiting for the government to "make Johhny stop touching them". Indeed, that is what we see here.

---

That is both insulting and wrong IMO. What we actually have is a sense that the government belongs to us and is not some fairytale monster that will gobble us all up if we ever relax our vigilance.The leader of the BNP was recently arrested for incitement to racial hatred after being secretly filmed in a party meeting in the back room of a (presumably) priovately owned pub. And rightly so. Incitement to racial hatred is incitementy to racial hatred whether its carried out on public property or private.The American system by contrast accepts that any amount of hate speech is viable as long as the speaker is wealthy enough to own the land they stand on. That is a betrayal of all citizens and and even more unbalanced legal position than the English libel laws.

quote:

---

Is it the government's job to protect each citizen against being insulted or offended? I think not.

---

And as has already been pointed out to you, the issue is not offence, the issue is denigration and dehumanisation. Please deal with the subject honestly.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 09:20 AM

quote:

---

Now, if a teacher assigns "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" in her class, and someone gets insulted by the repeated use of the word "nigger" which appears in that book, should she be arrested?

---

Quite obviously not. There does not appear to be a plausible case of dehumanisation or degrading treatment in this context. As I have already pointed out, it is you who are comflating mere offense with hate speech, not I.

quote:

---

Should the producers and artists who make gangsta rap in which whites are vilified and insulted, be prosecuted?

---

Shrug. You get what you give. It's a kind of circular question, because the reason you see this phenomenon is precisely because of the blind eye that is turned to whites dehumanising blacks. So in your free-for-all system, this is an entirely reasonable and logical response. But it's certainly illegal in South African law, largely because we all recognise the need to move past divisions is much more important than some abstraction of property rights. The idea that denigrating a human being can be addressed by a counter-denigration is futile and serves only to entrench the existing differences.A quick google shows some interesting differences in perspective:

quote:

---

2 Section 16(1) of the South African Constitution: Freedom of expression

​

Section 16(1) of the Constitution provides for freedom of expression:

​

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes -
(a) freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and
(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

​

Any limitation of this category of expression must satisfy the requirements of the general limitations clause contained in section 36(1) - discussed below - to be constitutionally valid.

​

Section 16(1) of the South African Constitution protects free expression generally. Freedom of expression includes verbal, written, pictorial and physical expression as well as expression via visual images. It therefore includes speech and activities such as displaying posters, painting and sculpting, dancing, the publication of photographs, symbolic acts such as flag burning, the wearing of certain items of clothing, physical gestures - in principle every act by which a person attempts to express some emotion, opinion, idea, belief or grievance. However, the closer the expression comes to action, and the further it drifts from conveying ideas and opinions, the less protection it will receive under the right to freedom of expression.18

​

Section 16(1) makes specific reference to certain forms of expression, such as freedom of the press and media, and academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. The notion that this special reference means that these forms of expression enjoy a higher degree of protection than other forms not specifically mentioned, has been rejected by academic writers.19 They remark that if anything, the expression of political opinion, which is not listed, should rather be given this honour.20 The idea that the press or journalists must enjoy special constitutional protection has emphatically been rejected by South African courts.21

​

3 Limitations on freedom of expression

​

No right, including fundamental rights, is absolute. They are limited by common-law rules (such as the law of defamation in the case of freedom of expression) to the extent that these are consistent with the Bill of Rights,22 and by state interests, such as national security, public order, the constitutional order, the pursuit of national unity and reconciliation, public safety, public health, public morals and democratic values.23 The right to freedom of expression is also limited by the rights of others, and conflicting rights often have to be balanced. Freedom of expression does not enjoy superior status in South African law and does not automatically trump the right to human dignity,24 or the right to equality. Furthermore, like other rights, freedom of expression as entrenched in section 16(1) may be limited by complying with the provisions of the general limitations clause (section 36) of the Constitution.

​

It has to be noted, however, that freedom of expression is also limited "internally" in terms of section 16(2) of the Constitution, which limitation operates independently of section 36. Section 16(2) introduces a curtailment of the right of freedom of expression and can therefore be regarded as an exception to the right of freedom of expression, which must be interpreted restrictively.

​

4 Section 16(2) as an internal limitation

​

Section 16(2) defines the boundaries beyond which the right to freedom of expression contained in subsection (1) does not extend. Freedom of expression does not extend to-

​

(a) propaganda for war;
(b) incitement of imminent violence; or
(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

​

Section 16(2) places certain forms of expression - including certain forms of "hate speech" - outside the right to freedom of expression and removes them from the ambit of constitutional protection. The right to freedom of expression does not extend to the listed categories of speech, which have in advance been singled out by the framers of the South African Constitution as not deserving constitutional protection, since they have, among other things, the potential to impinge adversely on the dignity (one of the core values of the Constitution)25 of others and cause them harm.26

​

Burns remarks that, unlike people in many other countries, South Africans do not have to examine, analyse and agonise over the question whether or not to prohibit "hate speech".27 There is no need to debate issues such as whether hate speech should be heard and the consequences dealt with, or whether censorship should be applied, with the danger that the ideas of bigots may be driven underground, sympathy for their views increased and resentment towards minority groups - who are seen as benefitting from the censorship -fuelled.28 The debate which has been raging elsewhere, namely whether hate speech should be protected as expressions of thought, or whether it should be repressed as infringements on the right to equality - in short whether equality or freedom of expression should be considered as the most important constitutional value - has to a large extent been made unnecessary in South Africa. By excluding advocacy of hatred from constitutional protection, South Africa has also implemented various international documents which demand that hate speech should be proscribed.29 Although South Africa has signed some, but has not ratified any of the international hate speech conventions, it nevertheless respects the spirit of international law,30 which in turns has a deep influence on the South African Constitution and its interpretation.31

​

The internal limitation contained in section 16(2) has the effect that parliament can introduce hate speech legislation or regulation for the class of speech listed in section 16(2). Such legislation would not be subject to a general limitation analysis in terms of section 36, since it would not amount to a limitation of the right contained in section 16(1). In short, a statute prohibiting hate speech as defined in the Constitution cannot be subject to a freedom of expression challenge, because there is not constitutional right to speech of this nature.

---

quote:

---

The "founders" of Communism and Socialsism are worm-food and don't matter. Live in the now.

---

Yep... what they wanted it completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. As I often remark, their personal desires are no more relevant to the quality of their research than Newton's religion was to the quality of his. What matters is what *I* want. And what I want is to be free.

quote:

---

So, someone in the UK can be secretly bugged or filmed in his own home saying "I hate those black bastards" and then be sent to prison?

---

Private property is an insufficent basis on which to claim an exemption from the law. Ian Huntley committed murder in his own home and was duly arrested an sentenced.Nick Griffin was secretly recorded by an undercover BBC reporter investigating the British National Party for a programme called Secret Agent. The BNP has recently been trying to move into the main stream by claiming that it is not an actively racist organisation but has instead been smeared as such by Leftists who hate Britain.

quote:

---

The police was triggered by a BBC documentary, broadcast in July, which included footage of Griffin giving a speech in the northern town of Keighley in which he railed against the Koran and Islam.

​

He said: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it's now sweeping country after country."

​

Other footage in "The Secret Agent" documentary shows another BNP member expressing a wish to blow up mosques with a rocket launcher and machine-gun worshippers with "about a million bullets."

​

Another member told how he put dog faeces through an Asian shop's letterbox, while a third described how he beat up a Muslim man. "I'm kicking away ... it was fantastic," he said.

​

West Yorkshire Police said the three men charged, from Bradford, were due to appear at Leeds Magistrates' Court on Thursday. Griffin is the 12th man to be detained in connection with the documentary.

---

quote:

---

What the fuck are you talking about? Gosh, contra, you do have your head up your ass when it comes to what things are like here in America.

---

Really. And yet this very thread has consistently argued that if a bunch of bigots own or control a stadium they are entirely free to use it for the dissemination of hate speech on the basis that it is their private property. What is it that I am misunderstanding?

quote:

---

The moment you are able to limit one kind of speech you set a viral example of how other types of speech that are disliked by the majority can also be outlawed. If you don't like the fact that this kind of thing is limited by the Constitution of the USA, don't live in America.

---

I don't, and I'm very pleased about that fact. I only wish that Iraq enjoyed the freedom from barbarous America that I do.Please read the commentary on the South African constitution I have just posted. I understand the point you raise, but my own position is that human dignity and protection from hate speech, which is inherently anti-democratic, are more important.you could address this specific point, if you like:

quote:

---

The right to freedom of expression does not extend to the listed categories of speech, which have in advance been singled out by the framers of the South African Constitution as not deserving constitutional protection, since they have, among other things, the potential to impinge adversely on the dignity (one of the core values of the Constitution) of others and cause them harm.

---

This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 11:41 AM

quote:

---

It also allows us to protest against a definition of marriage from being written to our Constitution. It also allows us to organize in front of public offices and protest the war. It allows us to protest and get Prohibition repealed and womens suffrage put into the Constitution.

---

I have all those rights AND I have the right to be protected from dehumanising and degrading hate speech.

quote:

---

We already have such laws. Your ignorance of the Constitution is harrowing.

---

Is it now. I think your ignorance of the consitution is harrowing. The south african constitution, of course.

quote:

---

And since you were given an explanation of the origin and reason for the system your rant about how the founding fathers are somtimes idolized is entirely useless to the conversation.

---

Then do not appeal to their authority.

quote:

---

Which it is not in America. We have a whole bunch of laws, the Constitution not the least of these, that explicitly prohibit racial, ethnic, religious, or any kind of abuse.

---

...except that as this thread began, religious dogma that dehumanises and degrades people of other faiths is apparently protected, and those of us affected by it should just suck it up or not go to these private venues. Which is it?