Freedom of Speech

Here's a really controversial topic. What does "freedom of speech" mean to you? Should any subjects be prohibited a priori? Let's make a list of the subjects that no one should ever talk about and why.

#1. Never mention again how "historic" Obama's election is. We're either PC and don't recognize race or we recognize it for what it is. Equality does mean undifferentiation afterall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

#1. Never mention again how "historic" Obama's election is. We're either PC and don't recognize race or we recognize it for what it is. Equality does mean undifferentiation afterall.

---

I thought that "equality" only meant "equality under the law". Obviously, people are not equal in any other way. In fact, Obama may not even be the US's first "black" president. One of the interesting things about his biography, Dreams from my Father, is that, for his entire life, Obama has obsessed about whether he is, in fact, "black enough".

I think it's historic that a black (well ok half black) man has won the US Presidency considering that in many areas of the US fifty years ago he wouldn't have been allowed to drink out of the same water fountain as a white (or less than half-black) man.

- incidentally that is also an example of what free speech means to me. I can be as PC or non PC as I like without fear of a soldier taking me away. To me it also means a private board such as SRP can speak freely about what it chooses to restrict in the way of others' free speech who use its board

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

To me it also means a private board such as SRP can speak freely about what it chooses to restrict in the way of free speech from others using its board

---

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

---

absolutely :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Here's a really controversial topic. What does "freedom of speech" mean to you? Should any subjects be prohibited a priori? Let's make a list of the subjects that no one should ever talk about and why.

---

Lets start with a blanket: Any that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

---

No. (EDIT: All sides should be allowed, but they aren't necessarily) Only those sides which:

A) Meet the above criterion
B) (in the Conversation Forum specifically) meet with the approval of the original poster with respect to being on topic or not.

On this site, speech is governed and it is governed differently on different sections of this site even.

If that was not obvious before, I hope it is now.


-Rob

Found this on Wikipedia, i think it says it very well:

Based on John Stuart Mill's arguments, freedom of speech today is understood as a multi-faceted right that includes not only the right to express, or disseminate, information and ideas, but three further distinct aspects:
The right to seek information and ideas;
the right to receive information and ideas;
the right to impart information and ideas.

Did you ever read the judgement passed on the man who wrote the DECSS application (which removed the encryption from DVD movies.) That took arguments about what constitutes free speech to a whole new level. It was like a thesis on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (*)

P.S. to sicboater. I don't believe there are any subjects that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner. It's the attitude of the gentlemen that counts, not the subject matter.

P.P.S. (*) heres an example: http://www.2600.com/news/112801-files/universal.html

P.P.P.S. Isn't it interesting how in Germany it is illegal to suggest that the Holocaust was faked? Ask yourself this: wouldn't Hitler have been proud of such a law?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

---

Yep.
stupid character limit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

P.S. to sicboater. I don't believe there are any subjects that cannot be discussed in a gentlemanly manner. It's the attitude of the gentlemen that counts, not the subject matter.

---

This is what I mean to imply exactly. Thank you!

-Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

I agree with that. If a moderator asked me not to open a thread on a certain topic, I would comply. But, if a topic is allowed, then all the sides of the argument should be allowed. Don't you agree?

---

Just keep in mind that the reality is that this site is not a democracy.Its privately run and if the owner wanted to control what was posted he could do it. Our choice would be to vote with our feet and go elsewhere if we disagreed with his policies or comply with his demands.

Of course that's not an issue here but on some sites it is.

Freedom of speech to me, and at one time the Supreme Court, is the right to express any idea, thought or word that does not directly lead to harm. Period.

So you can say you hate Obama all you want. Go ahead, no one will arrest you.

But if you are somewhere in Obama's vicinity, you have a weapon, and you say "I'm going to kill Obama." then say goodbye to the 1st amendment.

There are NO topics which are out of bounds of 1st amendment protection. But please, remember, the 1st amendment is a protection from GOVERNMENTAL intervention, not private. The moderators of this, or any other forum, are incapable of violating your 1st amendment rights, because they aren't the Man.

Freedom of speech means that you can talk about anything you want except whether you sit or stand while doing your business:gaah:
Billy should be banned for that thread post haste!;):D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Freedom of speech means that you can talk about anything you want except whether you sit or stand while doing your business:gaah:

---

Honing, right?:rofl2:

...Oh ... You mean the other one! :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

P.P.P.S. Isn't it interesting how in Germany it is illegal to suggest that the Holocaust was faked? Ask yourself this: wouldn't Hitler have been proud of such a law?

---

That's an interesting point and it should be clarified that the issue is not faking the holocaust but saying anything that tends to diminish it. There are people in jail as we speak who are only guilty of critical scholarship. For example, Ernst Zündel was imprisoned because he published a book saying that less than 6 million Jews were killed in the concentration camps, even though this is officially acknowledged. A sign a Auschwitz that used to say that 4 million Jews were killed there was quietly changed to a lower number (1.5 million, I think). Assuming for the sake of argument that only 5 million were killed instead of 6, isn't that already horrible enough? Others have been imprisoned because they said that there is no evidence that there were gas chambers and that the heaps of bodies were victims of disease. Why should it be a crime to say that? Shouldn't the test of whether or not one should be allowed to say something be whether it is true or not? Not whether it tends to annoy a certain group of people?

These people are called "Holocaust Deniers," which, like antisemite and self-hating Jew is a word coined to smear people. In reality, there isn't anyone who denies the holocaust. Everyone admits that the Nazis hated the Jews. Everyone agrees that they were rounded up and put into concentration camps and that an awful lot of people died. Historians just want to clarify how many people died and how. Why should that be a crime?

By the way, it isn't a crime in just Germany but also Austria, Canada, Italy and, I think, France and some other countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

That's an interesting point and it should be clarified that the issue is not faking the holocaust but saying anything that tends to diminish it. There are people in jail as we speak who are only guilty of critical scholarship. For example, Ernst Zündel was imprisoned because he published a book saying that less than 6 million Jews were killed in the concentration camps, even though this is officially acknowledged. A sign a Auschwitz that used to say that 4 million Jews were killed there was quietly changed to a lower number (1.5 million, I think). Assuming for the sake of argument that only 5 million were killed instead of 6, isn't that already horrible enough? Others have been imprisoned because they said that there is no evidence that there were gas chambers and that the heaps of bodies were victims of disease. Why should it be a crime to say that? Shouldn't the test of whether or not one should be allowed to say something be whether it is true or not? Not whether it tends to annoy a certain group of people?

These people are called "Holocaust Deniers," which, like antisemite and self-hating Jew is a word coined to smear people. In reality, there isn't anyone who denies the holocaust. Everyone admits that the Nazis hated the Jews. Everyone agrees that they were rounded up and put into concentration camps and that an awful lot of people died. Historians just want to clarify how many people died and how. Why should that be a crime?

By the way, it isn't a crime in just Germany but also Austria, Canada, Italy and, I think, France and some other countries.

---

This post really shows you in your true colors Chimensch. I don't actually believe that you are or ever were Jewish at all, I think that you are using that cover to hide behind whilst you spread your hatred.

Your cover has been well and truly blown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Englishgent

This post really shows you in your true colors Chimensch. I don't actually believe that you are or ever were Jewish at all, I think that you are using that cover to hide behind whilst you spread your hatred.

Your cover has been well and truly blown.

---

And why would that be?

I don't doubt the holocaust happened, but during the war, both sides fed their population propaganda. The Nazis in Germany, and the allies in their own countries. So the idea to put historical research into controversial areas should not be a hot button issue. Just because the allies won the war does not make all propaganda true.

Truth should be open for all to see, not hidden away from inspection in some corner.

[quote=Bruno;315936] Just because the allies won the war does not make all propaganda true.
quote]

The winners get to write the history books. It doesn't help with the facts on the ground, it's just the reality of it.

There are always limits to free speech. Some are well-known, like the undesirability of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and some are not, like the rampant censorship that goes on in the United States that forbids, for example, import of written material from certain countries, such as Cuba, or the dissemination of calls to action that are themselves against the law. For example, I believe that the government has an interest in shutting web sites that post the names and addresses of Ob-Gyn physicians who perform abortions in order that interested parties may assassinate them more easily.

Political correctness is another issue. For the most part, it's "voluntary." In other words, there's no legal principle at stake, only the tendency of people to behave like sheep. One thing that should be recognized, however, is that it cuts both ways. Conservatives like to portray political correctness as a progressive thing, but they make use of it all the time. The worst example was the 2002 vote in Congress to authorize the president to attack Iraq. Political feeling, in the wake of 9-11, was running strongly in favor of allowing the president unparalleled latitude in attacking foreign nations, and at the time it was considered near-political suicide to go against that. So politicians, being inherently cowards, felt compelled to vote for the authorization. There were a few in both houses who had sufficient grit to stand on principle, but as we all know, there weren't enough. One thing I was proud of was that all three of my representatives voted against it. But it definitely wasn't "politically correct."

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Englishgent

This post really shows you in your true colors Chimensch. I don't actually believe that you are or ever were Jewish at all, I think that you are using that cover to hide behind whilst you spread your hatred.

Your cover has been well and truly blown.

---

I don't understand why you continue to want to make me the center of attention, as if there would be no problems if I would just go away or could be proven not to be who I say I am. I assure you that my 87-year old father is a rabbi in Chicago and my brother is a rabbi in Wisconsin.

Now, supposing that I wasn't who I say am. Wouldn't there still be people that you would call antisemites and holocaust deniers? If I weren't who I say I am, what would be changed?

I have to say that you are not treating me with respect but that I am putting up with you to demonstrate that it is possible to discuss sensitive issues without losing ones temper.

I am also putting up with you because I want people to see the tactics are that are used to shut down constructive dialogue. So, I would like to officially welcome you to my thread and I hope you will continue to post to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

There are always limits to free speech. Some are well-known, like the undesirability of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and some are not, like the rampant censorship that goes on in the United States that forbids, for example, import of written material from certain countries, such as Cuba, or the dissemination of calls to action that are themselves against the law. For example, I believe that the government has an interest in shutting web sites that post the names and addresses of Ob-Gyn physicians who perform abortions in order that interested parties may assassinate them more easily.

Political correctness is another issue. For the most part, it's "voluntary." In other words, there's no legal principle at stake, only the tendency of people to behave like sheep. One thing that should be recognized, however, is that it cuts both ways. Conservatives like to portray political correctness as a progressive thing, but they make use of it all the time. The worst example was the 2002 vote in Congress to authorize the president to attack Iraq. Political feeling, in the wake of 9-11, was running strongly in favor of allowing the president unparalleled latitude in attacking foreign nations, and at the time it was considered near-political suicide to go against that. So politicians, being inherently cowards, felt compelled to vote for the authorization. There were a few in both houses who had sufficient grit to stand on principle, but as we all know, there weren't enough. One thing I was proud of was that all three of my representatives voted against it. But it definitely wasn't "politically correct."

j

---

Thanks for a very intelligent post. I think that the situation is seldom black and white. For example, Professor Norman Finkelstein is Jewish and the son of holocaust survivors. He has been persecuted for his views on the state of Israel and the exploitation of holocaust survivors by Jewish organizations. He has not been persecuted by the government, but by wealthy individuals and organizations. In the latest incident, he was denied tenure at DePaul University and is having trouble even getting speaking engagements. In fact, there seem to be a lot of "englishgents" out there trying to drown out voices that they don't agree with. I agree that it is not a legal issue directly, but rather a cultural one. I feel that if we value our democracy we have to protect the space for public discourse where everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

I will say once again that a society that cannot discuss its problems cannot solve them. By this measure, "we", the western world, are in a lot of trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chimensch

Thanks for a very intelligent post. I think that the situation is seldom black and white. For example, Professor Norman Finkelstein is Jewish and the son of holocaust survivors. He has been persecuted for his views on the state of Israel and the exploitation of holocaust survivors by Jewish organizations. He has not been persecuted by the government, but by wealthy individuals and organizations. In the latest incident, he was denied tenure at DePaul University and is having trouble even getting speaking engagements. In fact, there seem to be a lot of "englishgents" out there trying to drown out voices that they don't agree with. I agree that it is not a legal issue directly, but rather a cultural one. I feel that if we value our democracy we have to protect the space for public discourse where everyone has an opportunity to be heard.

I will say once again that a society that cannot discuss its problems cannot solve them. By this measure, "we", the western world, are in a lot of trouble.

---

Yes, we're always in trouble, trying to muddle our way out.

One thing, though. Perhaps Englishgent's post was a bit too strident, but there's no need to make him a byword. He's an opponent in a debate. He may, in fact, be dead wrong, and he may have made this personal, but try not to respond in-kind.

Thanks for your post. It's not very often anybody actually agrees with me. Both sides seem to find me annoying.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Yes, we're always in trouble, trying to muddle our way out.

One thing, though. Perhaps Englishgent's post was a bit too strident, but there's no need to make him a byword. He's an opponent in a debate. He may, in fact, be dead wrong, and he may have made this personal, but try not to respond in-kind.

Thanks for your post. It's not very often anybody actually agrees with me. Both sides seem to find me annoying.

j

---

I accept your point about Englishgent. But it's not true that he's an opponent in a debate. He's not actually debating ... its more like heckling. Fortunately, in this format only one person can speak at a time, so he's not able to drown out the speaker.

As for the rest ... if you think people find you annoying ... it's why I chose "troublemaker" as my title.

It's interesting that the discussion in this thread shows by its content that we all have freedom of speech.

I think.

The holocaust annoys the heck out of me more than anything.
I read the history, I've visited some of the concentration camps, I've seen the gas chambers and the incinerators. I've also heard every moaning Jew from one side of the world to the other go on and on and on about it. I've also had the Jewish propoganda machine use its influential media people hype the message continuously on the television and radio virtually daily throughout my life.
Its now even crawled its way onto my shaving forum.

I wonder if the Jews will use the same media machine to seek foregiveness for the ethnic cleansing they have just undertaken in the holocaust that has just taken place in the Gaza strip.

Now lets see if we really have freedom of speech to say what we really think and feel without any recriminations. Because that what freedom of speech is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

It's interesting that the discussion in this thread shows by its content that we all have freedom of speech.

I think.

The holocaust annoys the heck out of me more than anything.
I read the history, I've visited some of the concentration camps, I've seen the gas chambers and the incinerators. I've also heard every moaning Jew from one side of the world to the other go on and on and on about it. I've also had the Jewish propoganda machine use its influential media people hype the message continuously on the television and radio virtually daily throughout my life.
Its now even crawled its way onto my shaving forum.

I wonder if the Jews will use the same media machine to seek foregiveness for the ethnic cleansing they have just undertaken in the holocaust that has just taken place in the Gaza strip.

Now lets see if we really have freedom of speech to say what we really think and feel without any recriminations. Because that what freedom of speech is.

---

We should maintain a distinction between the action of the Israeli government and the action of "Jews." There is a big difference. Disagreement with policies of the State of Israel is not synonymous with anti-semitism, nor are the activities of Israel equal to the activities of all Jews.

The State of Israel has to answer for its actions in Gaza, not Jews.

j

Nord Jim,

You are correct. But I should remind you that the Israeli Government was democratically elected by its people who are Jewish.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect it. It doesn't mean I agree with it but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

Freedom of speech means that you can talk about anything you want except whether you sit or stand while doing your business:gaah:
Billy should be banned for that thread post haste!;):D

---

Now cut that out!!
:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

It's interesting that the discussion in this thread shows by its content that we all have freedom of speech.

I think.

The holocaust annoys the heck out of me more than anything.
I read the history, I've visited some of the concentration camps, I've seen the gas chambers and the incinerators. I've also heard every moaning Jew from one side of the world to the other go on and on and on about it. I've also had the Jewish propoganda machine use its influential media people hype the message continuously on the television and radio virtually daily throughout my life.
Its now even crawled its way onto my shaving forum.

I wonder if the Jews will use the same media machine to seek foregiveness for the ethnic cleansing they have just undertaken in the holocaust that has just taken place in the Gaza strip.

Now lets see if we really have freedom of speech to say what we really think and feel without any recriminations. Because that what freedom of speech is.

---

Not that I support the murder of sivilians.But to compare Gaza with holocaust is to me very disrespectfull.We are talking about a total of 1300 deaths.Compered to 300000 murders every month for several years.I do however agree with you that the holocaust card has been played to often.

Kristoffer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

Not that I support the murder of sivilians.But to compare Gaza with holocaust is to me very disrespectfull.We are talking about a total of 1300 deaths.Compered to 300000 murders every month for several years.I do however agree with you that the holocaust card has been played to often.

Kristoffer.

---

Where's the limit, then? Is it simple killing at 1300 and mass murder at, say, 10,000? Are some people counted at a higher rate than others? Perhaps 1300 Israelis killed would be an atrocity, but not 1300 Palestinians?

You see where this is going?

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

Nord Jim,

You are correct. But I should remind you that the Israeli Government was democratically elected by its people who are Jewish.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I respect it. It doesn't mean I agree with it but that is what freedom of speech is all about.

---

And our government was elected by people who are predominantly Christian. I think the two concepts need to be kept separate.

j

There is a clear difference between the war in Gaza and what Stalin and Hitler did to people.Of course it has nothing to do with the value of different etnic groups.The sheer difference in numbers is one thing, but also the background and ideology represented is not comperable.Do you honestly propose that the Israely government has a hidden agenda for the "final solution" of all palestines?

Kristoffer.

Kristoffer,

Thank you for sharing your views with us.

The 100 to one death ratio in Gaza is the the statistic that I find impossible to comprehend. By any scale or any proportion that is totally unforgivable. I have no respect for a race of people who can do such a thing.

I'm sorry if my views offend you but they are my considered views and I will express them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

And our government was elected by people who are predominantly Christian. I think the two concepts need to be kept separate.

j

---

Really. Thanks for the information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

Kristoffer,

Thank you for sharing your views with us.

The 100 to one death ratio in Gaza is the the statistic that I find impossible to comprehend. By any scale or any proportion that is totally unforgivable. I have no respect for a race of people who can do such a thing.

I'm sorry if my views offend you but they are my considered views and I will express them.

---

Wich is your right. But when stating that you would not respect a race of people that would do such a thing, there really aren't many races of people left to respect.Since the beginning of human kind such terrible acts has been commited.What makes the jews so espesially evil in your oppinion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

There is a clear difference between the war in Gaza and what Stalin and Hitler did to people.Of course it has nothing to do with the value of different etnic groups.The sheer difference in numbers is one thing, but also the background and ideology represented is not comperable.Do you honestly propose that the Israely government has a hidden agenda for the "final solution" of all palestines?

Kristoffer.

---

I do believe that many factions within Israel consider Palestinian lives to be worth less than Israeli lives. When I was young, I had occasion to meet Rabbi Meier Kahane, and that, frankly, was his belief. His view, sadly, has gained much sway in the region, and especially in the West Bank settlements.

j

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

Really. Thanks for the information.

---

Do I detect sarcasm?

j

Kristoffer,

The topic is freedom of speech and I don't want to go off topic.

But to answer you, two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I do believe that many factions within Israel consider Palestinian lives to be worth less than Israeli lives. When I was young, I had occasion to meet Rabbi Meier Kahane, and that, frankly, was his belief. His view, sadly, has gained much sway in the region, and especially in the West Bank settlements.

j

---

I am sure you are right.But these views are shared by many different etnic groups towards eachother.
Palestinien children learn from an early age to hate jews and western culture.Leaders of Hamas actually compare jews to monkeys and pigs.Why is it that these views seem to get a bigger acceptance in under developed countries?

Kristoffer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English

Kristoffer,

The topic is freedom of speech and I don't want to go off topic.

But to answer you, two wrongs do not make a right.

---

he he, you are right.I seem to be abit of topic here.And that also goes for my last post.
I'm just an eager debatant of such kind. Sorry.:)