Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

@Setanta,

I can freely acknowledge that u seem to have some degree
of pre-existing knowledge of history.

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

So why give them the excuse?

Because it wouldn't end there, and you know it.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
~George Washington

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I'd say that a lot of things are vague in your memory. On many occasions, i have acknowledged that i use Wikipedia--i use it confirms spellings and dates, even though it is obvious that a lot of the information there is unreliable. But you, like your buddy Finn and you new buddy Izzy the Putz here ignore that if i didn't already know well the subjects about which i post, i'd not know what to look for at Wikipedia. But i'm sure you'll enjoy joining your new asshold buddy Izzy in the pile on.

Can one assume that Izzyla knows what a "putz" is? I just like the diminutive Izzyla. Such a smart boychick that Izzyla. [At will Foofie can affect an old world Yiddish accent. Foofie does a nice brogue too. A German accent, and sometimes in the right mood a French accent. Will the real Foofie please stand up.]

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I think I've made the point about freedom of speech quite a lot. I wasn't responding to your particular post because you're not really worthy of serious consideration, but here goes Malvolio, just for you.

It's not about restricting freedom of speech but whether 'hate speech' should be afforded the protection of freedom of speech/expression. We decided it shouldn't, and there was a lot of debate at the time, particularly by comedians and satirists who were concerned it may affect their freedom of expression. That has not turned out to be the case.

The problem I find is that whenever this sort of thing is mentioned, there is a certain type of American, (you being a prime example) who feels personally under attack, and feels a need to lecture us about your history, what little there is of it. To hear you talk one would be forgiven for thinking that you had crossed the Delaware personally.

Maybe it's because you have so little history that you constantly have to look backwards, terrified that any slight change to your system of government will bring the whole lot tumbling down. William Pitt the younger faced exactly the same criticism when he failed to introduce his limited reform act. By 1832 things had moved on, and reforms did happen without any ensuing anarchy.

This is the 21st Century, and to have an 18th Century mindset is anachronistic in the extreme. To call you yesterday's man would miss the point, you'd be yesterday's man in 1832.

2 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
So why give them the excuse?
Because it wouldn't end there, and you know it.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
~George Washington

By all rights, in my opinion, you just ended this thread with the above cogent and salient thought. But, you might have also made a prescient statement about the future of Europeans.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
So why give them the excuse?
Because it wouldn't end there, and you know it.

What do you think would happen if certain Americans stopped gratuitously insulting Islam?

You'll never satisfy the extremists, but this sort of thing makes them appeal to the mainstream. It would be better to isolate them. Now GungasnaKKKe and Oralboy may want a full blown jihad in the mistaken belief they could win it, but I think that would be a disaster, for everyone.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

And made my point about an 18th century mindset.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What do you think would happen if certain Americans stopped gratuitously insulting Islam?

I think it would force them to reveal the real reason for their rage, which is the U.S. and NATO drone strikes on Muslim countries.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

That's an awful lot of blather for someone you allege not to be worth the effort. Of course, you were unable to respond without vicious personal remarks, despite your sneer at me on that account.

If one restricts what you are pleased to characterize as "hate speech," then it is very much about restricing freedom of speech. Any such restriction is pregmant with the menace of the creeping restriction of any speech which any group can allege is even merely unpleasant to them. See Irish K's post.

What comedians and satists alleged about your law is of no concern for two reasons. The first is that it no part of my argument. The second is that i have not attempted to suggest that your laws are deficient. I've simply criticized you for your consistent chauvinistic claims about the superiority of the laws of your nation. You have in no way demonstrated that that is the case.

Once again, in my initial post to you, there was not a hint of a claim from me that i was personally under attack. This is just a typical Izzy hysteria--to fling accusations for which there is no basis because you are the one who can't handle criticism. Silly schoolyard taunts about how little history we have are not relevant either, as i did not mention an historical imperative, i simply pointed out why freedom of speech is valued here, and the extent to which speech is protected. You're the fool who has been dancing around telling us how superior your nation's measures are. I see no reason to consider that to be true. There was no historical lecture--as usual, you indulge hyperbole because you don't in fact have a basis for your sneers without making things up.

I've crossed the Delaware river on several occasions. There are many nice bridges, and in some places, the scenery is breathtaking. Not that you'd have any way of knowing that. Your comment about 1832 is hilarious though. The passage of that Reform Act increased the electorate in your silly little country, but it did not even remotely approach the size of the franchise in the United States in 1832. If you want a lecture in history, i'll be more than happy to give you one. But i suspect you're not interested. You don't seem to be interested in any real, reliable information--after all, you've got all your prejudices and everything you learned about America from watching television, why would you need any more?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

And made my point about an 18th century mindset.

Do you have a college education? I never can assume anything with Brits, since they speak the language oftentimes better than many Yanks, and might be better informed, for the same level of education. My point being that, in my opinion, you ooze self-complimentary comments, and I was wondering if you are just facile with your rhetoric, or actually educated? Either way, is "modesty" part of your lexicon?

0 Replies

@Irishk,

I was talking about Israels desire to attack Iran, IMO It would be a stupid move.

No I don't think censoring it would make any difference and I agree these lunatics are just waiting for any excuse to blame the West for all their problems although in fairness the West must shoulder a lot of the blame for what's happened in the Middle East but not all.

I think Islam should take a long hard look at itself. Although it's a religion so there's no chance of that. (set in stone and all that.)
Okay it's always about the fanatics but I think all this runs much deeper than that.

Saying all that if I were a member of Ambassador Stevens family I wouldn't be impressed at how some people used their right to free speech knowing it would get folk like their family member killed.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Since then, your natural rights to defend your LIFE ITSELF,
were violated by your government; than that, there is nothing more FUNDAMENTAL.
Relative to THAT, all else is trivial.

izzythepush wrote:

Far more people are killed by guns in America.

That consists mostly of African-based turf wars
for illegal drug profits. That is alien to the lives of most Americans
(tho I must acknowledge that the unConstitutional War on Drugs
promotes the perpetuation of the perpetration of crime, anywhere).

izzythepush wrote:

My best defence is to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics.

Bearing in mind that guns were made by hand
before Christopher Columbus's dad was born,
faster & easier now with electric tools n computer aided design,
u can only do that, IF those lunatics are willing to co-operate.
Not all robbers, burglars & murderers are easy to convince.

Dave wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

Quote:
and were a lot more reluctant to criticise the weak and powerful.
Evidence ??

izzythepush wrote:

What's most spoken about is the launch of satirical show That Was The Week That Was, and the way the Profumo affair was reported. Also the way Peter Cook tore into Harold MacMillan when MacMillan tried to show what a good egg he was by turning up to the show. Both are seen as pivotal moments in which the entertainment industry/satirists attacked those in power.

Is there some indication
that the same thing had not happened b4 ??

David

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

There's plenty of Moslems you can reason with, by far the vast majority in fact, and this alienates them every bit as much as the fanatics.

I'll have to disagree with this piece. I have a number of colleagues who are practicing Muslims. They took absolutely no notice of the film, other than to find the extremists' reaction to it, well, extreme.

1 Reply

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
So why give them the excuse?
Because it wouldn't end there, and you know it.

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
~George Washington

that has not been the Canadian experience with hate laws.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's not about restricting freedom of speech but whether 'hate speech' should be afforded the protection of freedom of speech/expression. We decided it shouldn't, and there was a lot of debate at the time, particularly by comedians and satirists who were concerned it may affect their freedom of expression. That has not turned out to be the case.

precisely.

the rest of the post was needlessly personal. not sure why you guys keep doing that cr@p

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I agree; about 23% of the world population are Muslims, and they are peaceful people. In Central Asia, some countries have over 90% Muslims, and it's illegal to promote any religion.

When I visited the five stans some years ago, the children would approach us to talk with us, because they wanted some contact, and to practice their English. Not only that, but on public transportation, the children stood up for us seniors to sit.

We don't find that in most other countries.

0 Replies

I thought Germany had really strong hate laws. So, I just saw a headline reporting on an invasion of the German embassy in Sudan? Did some German tell an off color joke, or something?

1 Reply

@roger,

No. Criminals do not use reason to exact their violence against others.

1 Reply

@eurocelticyankee,

It's not Islam that has to look at itself; there are extremists in every culture, and it's not dependent on their religion.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Good. I'm glad your understanding is intact. Violent people do violent things, and they don't need a reason.

0 Replies

Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know