Simcountry
Forum General The end of freedom of speech. (Golden Rainbow)

The end of freedom of speech. (Golden Rainbow)

Z
Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue)
28 Jan 2009 09:41 Link
I'm not expert on Christianity nor Islam, however, I'm not all that sure Islam is less "evolved" than Christianity.

My opinion is that when it comes to conflicts between peoples and their causes, the role of religion is often being overrated, and vast majority of them stems from what we could call "social" reasons. Religion and in similar fashion also Nationalism or Racism for example act, in this sense, as catalyzer in chemical reaction - it speeds up a process, or makes it easier for people to subscribe to the "us versus them" world view.

Throughout our history people fought wars mainly for land, money and power, and I personally find it hard to believe anyone, except for very few whom we often call either terrorists, guerrillas, freedom fighters, radicals, fundamentalists or heroes depending on how we view "good" and "evil", is willing to die in offensive war for anything not tangible but "ideology".

I've not read the Quaran, but I was told nowhere there it says one should stone women or call for Jihad against all unbelievers till they perish. Googling or preaching "quotes", taken out of context, does not mean nor prove a teaching as a whole is the "root of evil".

If we wanna look for the "root of evil", let's first look at the human nature itself.
N
nix001
28 Jan 2009 15:41 Link



Zdenek. Have you read the Bible? In there it talks about fighting against the unbelievers. And the Bible has been watered down. You should read the Koran or watch the many Islamic TV channels that are out there. You will then get the jist of the harshness of the teachings. There are alot of passages that call for the destruction of the non-believers and the punishment of women that commit adultary.

I think you are right about Religion being a product of social reasons. Man, when left up to his own devices, can either be good or bad. In the past without the threat of God or the forces created in the name of God the bad man was the ruler over the good man for the good man was alone and week. But with the forces of God/Good standing up to the bad man, the good man was able to curtail the bad mans wickedness. Creating a life that was built on Humaine instinct instead of Natural instinct.
Lose God and the bad man will take over again. Dog eat Dog and Thug life rule.

Christianity has been controlled and watered down by man over the past 150 years to a point that Christianity is no longer a threat to the bad man.
Hence why it seems to be only Islam thats facing the forces of the bad man. But if Jesus was to show his face, the bad man would have the two sides of God united againsts him. Judgment day.
The difference between Islam and Christianity is the belief in Jesus. Islam believes he is a man and Christianity believe he is the son of God/God himself.

If Jesus was to show up Islam would have to become Christian and Christianity would be re-born as the force of good.
Then all you good people out there that feel like your alone and feel weak against the power of the bad man will be given strength and purpose to stand up and stop the bad man from being bad.
But if Jesus does'nt show up, it will be proved that Jesus was just a man. And Christianity would either become Islam or Christianity, in the name of Christ , would start another crusade.
Not Good :(
For then the bad man could continue being bad as the forces of good would be fighting each other.
J
Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon)
28 Jan 2009 15:58 Link
Well we agree on that....

I still enjoy your hairless monkey quote. Very deep.

The issue with Islam is not so much the Koran but with the hadith. The oral traditions of what Mohammed said or did. This is what Sharia law is based from. This is where the beating of your wife, sleeping with ten year old girls, ect.. comes from.
F
FarmerBob (Little Upsilon)
29 Jan 2009 02:10 Link
You are pissing upwind here, Sam. What none of the children here seem to grasp is that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are founded upon the liberty to practice each without restriction.

Libel and slander are the only considerations, neither of which apply in this case.

Libel:
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

Slander:
A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel.
The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Written or printed slanders are libels.
Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages. Words of the first description must impute:
- 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable.
- 2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable.
- 3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies.
- 4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity or a clergyman of being a drunkard; Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim. Action upon the case for Defamation but it lies if maliciously spoken. The charge must be false; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. The slander must, of course, be published, that is communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be prove except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. SLANDERER - A calumniator, who maliciously and without reason imputes a crime or fault to another, of which he is innocent. For this offence, when the slander is merely verbal, the remedy is an action on the case for damages.


When the public criticism of a religion or religious group, regardless of the merit of said criticism, brings legal prosecution from government, any notion of freedom of speech is, indeed, quite dead.

"Hate Speech" can defined anyway one prefers to stifle the public expression of views of anyone.

Every citizen in the Netherlands should be very concerned about this conduct by their government.
P
Pathetic Sheep (Little Upsilon)
29 Jan 2009 06:43 Link
The crusades, the witch trials, the inquisition, and the invasion of the Americas were directly supported and administered by Christians and Christian institutions. Even the Holocaust was mostly organized by Christians. The word "terrorist" was created by Christians in order to describe a group of Christians.

I'm not Muslim or an expert on Islam. However, I am told that the term "jihad" is understood as an internal process. It is about as violent as maintaining a personal relationship with Jesus.

The idea of global political Islam and militant Jihad was spread by the CIA and ISI starting in the 1980s. The goal was to kill Russians in Afghanistan. Most of the pamphlets and textbooks used to educate the Mujahideen were printed on presses owned by Christians. The ideas of Political Islam have roots that go back to the mid 20th century. The suicidal missile toting mountain fanatics showed up in the 80's. The missiles were manufacture by General Dynamics corporation.

Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet and believe he spoke the word of god. Though I have not read the Koran I have been told that it is clear on the subject. Unfortunately that is not very reassuring.
F
FarmerBob
29 Jan 2009 16:07 Link
See what I mean, Sam?

Rome burns, whilst Caesar and the plebs fiddle.
D
Darke Katt (Fearless Blue)
29 Jan 2009 16:56 Link
Let Rome burn. It lies to us as much as any other.
V
Váli (Fearless Blue)
29 Jan 2009 19:59 Link
Pathetic sheep, what a perfect name to descirbe your last post.
Germans in general may have been christian, but Nazis? please...... they were into the occult etc hardly christain. The crusades etc all hundreds of years ago, please talk about live people please.
If you want to drag up history, the Arabs spread islam via jihad many years ago using external swords, spears, arrows etc...not much internal stuggle there.
The ottomans had a rather large empire aswell.
Enough of history, look at muslims today, 50 year old men marrying 8 year old girls in saudi arabia. This is backed by there courts. School girls being forced back into there burning school as they are not dressed properely for the street...again saudi...
The taleban killing those that would dare teach girls.
Iranians hanging gays. The torture of prisoners across the arab world.
blah blah blah I assume you get my drift.
Point being the western world has moved into the 21st century. The muslim world has not. Well our version of the 21st century any way. They may like there own 21st century of religious b*&%$£$$
But I am sticking with the western version thanks.
Z
Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue)
29 Jan 2009 21:01 Link
Just to note, even if nobody probably cares, but ...

Personally I'm suspicious of those who's vocabulary (and thus state of mind?) lacks terms like:

In my opinion, I believe, Seems to me, I think, Probably or Its reasonable to assume .. etc etc

I'm also suspicious of those who set up informations so they appear to look as (scientific) facts, when in reality such informations are either opinions, misconceptions, prejudices, false or simply lies.

The way I see it, this thread has quite a few such posters and informations.
J
John R
29 Jan 2009 22:33 Link
Freedoms are privileges granted to the moment you disrespect them.
T
The Grand Poobah (Golden Rainbow)
29 Jan 2009 22:59 Link
"Point being the western world has moved into the 21st century. The muslim world has not. Well our version of the 21st century any way. They may like there own 21st century of religious b*&%$£$$
But I am sticking with the western version thanks.'

There's a reason the West is hated. We ain't angels sir.
J
Johanas Bilderburg (Little Upsilon)
30 Jan 2009 01:56 Link
We digress from the original point.

Why is calling Islam a facist religion worthy of investigation and possible jail time?

Agree or disagree the man has a right to his opinion. I am concerned at the lack of attention given this ongoing issue. If he were being investigated for insulting any other religion the outcry would be enormous. Which leads me to my second question.

What is the Leftist fascination with Islam.

Its the complete opposite of everything they believe in.
S
straight jacket II (Little Upsilon)
30 Jan 2009 02:17 Link
theres a young woman in Aust who could tell you about islam after being gang raped by them, reason being and these were their words "you deserve it because you are Australian".
F
FarmerBob
30 Jan 2009 14:41 Link
Associated Press June 23, 2009

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

In a landmark case yesterday, officials from the Dutch Ministry of Justice requested the extradition of a American citizen for comments reportedly made on an Internet game forum based in the Netherlands. The posts, made back in January, were allegedly of a highly inflammatory nature and directed at a specific religious group. An anonymous E-mail containing the remarks was sent to the Dutch authorities who promptly investigated the allegations.

"After a thorough investigation of the comments reported to us, we determined that this individual had violated our Hate Speech laws and was subject to prosecution in the Netherlands, since the criminal activity was conducted on Dutch property," said Andries Van Hangum, spokesman for the Ministry of Justice. "We, therefore, requested his arrest and extradition for trial in Dutch Courts."

The game site, now closed since the seizure of its equipment and records by Dutch authorities, was reputedly a wargame whose goal was world domination and a hotbed of activity by members of hate groups from across the globe. The forums and chat rooms connected to game were an alleged gathering place for hate group militants to exchange propaganda and coordinate activities. The game's creator and owner, Jozi Van Nogamcash, has not returned calls or requests for interviews; but, his company's spokesman, Tom Williard, has denied any wrongdoing and promised full cooperation with investigators. W3Creative is under investigation for possible money laundering and funneling support to various European hate groups. According to Mr. Williard, W3Creative, the operator of the sites, relied upon a player to moderate the forums and was unaware of any criminal activity. This player/moderator who posted under the nickname John R(apist) was discovered to be a registered sex offender in Portugal and wanted for questioning in Brazil in connection with the disappearances of several underage cabana boys.

The indentity of the player accused of violating the comprehensive Dutch Anti-Hate Speech Laws was not released due to fears of attempts on his life by outraged members of the targeted religious group.

However, Michael Burokrat, spokesman for the US Department of Justice, announced later in the day, that the individual in question had been placed into Federal protective custody pending investigation of the charges and for his own safety. Burokrat added that the Extradition Treaties between NATO members would be honored if sufficient evidence was presented by the Dutch government that the accused had violated Dutch Law. He also added that various Federal Agencies had begun investigating the game's player membership for possible connections to terrorists or other "groups of interest" to American law enforcement and national security.

In a related developement, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi cited this specific case, today, as a demonstration of America's failure to keep up with European governments in their efforts to stem the spread of destructive hate speech rampant throughout the Internet and Western societies. "It is shameful," she said, "that this sort of behavior should be tolerated in America and the people of the Netherlands have to show us what needs to be done."
A bill containing much tougher penalties for Hate Speech and Hate Crimes was introduced into the House Judiciary Commitee later in the day.<!-/Quote-!>



<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
--Benjamin Franklin <!-/Quote-!>



Who really needs the Freedom of Speech, anyway?
Z
Zdeněk Pavlovský (Fearless Blue)
30 Jan 2009 15:02 Link
Who needs nipples?
B
BorderC (Kebir Blue)
30 Jan 2009 15:24 Link
Well done Farmer Bob. Well done.
N
nix001
31 Jan 2009 08:06 Link
U dont F@~% with God.
I say, rolling in at this time loaded with Vodka. :) or :( as I'm not to sure how I should be feeling right now :) :( :) :(

Quote 'Associated Press June 23, 2009'???????????
Yes I know......2008 or 2007 or 2006 F it. I Don't know. But does it matter???????????? No. It just seemed like it did at the time. :)
N
nix001 (Fearless Blue)
31 Jan 2009 09:09 Link
Anyways. If man had not have dissolved Christianity, it would be us who would not be tolerating the lords name being taken in vain.
A
Asmodeus (Little Upsilon)
02 Feb 2009 19:32 Link
I fear we will never get rid, or outgrow god/Gods;
We have too much faith in grammar.
D
Darke Katt
02 Feb 2009 21:36 Link
<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
--Benjamin Franklin<!-/Quote-!>



This would suggest that only true anarchism is desirable. By allowing governments to set laws we are surrendering many freedoms in the name of security. Would you surrender all law to anarchism?

This quote has never really been relevant to any time or place, no matter how inspiring it may appear to the cause of "Freedom of Speech."

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

253. THE FOX WHO SERVED A LION

A Lion had a Fox to attend on him, and whenever they went hunting the Fox found the prey and the Lion fell upon it and killed it, and then they divided it between them in certain proportions. But the Lion always got a very large share, and the Fox a very small one, which didn't please the latter at all; so he determined to set up on his own account. He began by trying to steal a lamb from a flock of sheep: but the shepherd saw him and set his dogs on him. The hunter was now the hunted, and was very soon caught and despatched by the dogs.

Better servitude with safety than freedom with danger.<!-/Quote-!>



Quotes from people long since dead, based upon times long since past hold little relevance to the current circumstances. Both quotes prove that.

In this world, you will find, the rules of the game are quite simple. Do as the Western world does, or die for your beliefs. Do as the Islamic world does, or die for your beliefs. Here we have two sides, more than willing to kill in the name of their way of life, claiming to simply be "defending" it from the other.

It would be quite hillarious, were it not for all the innocent souls caught in the middle.
T
The Grand Poobah (Little Upsilon)
03 Feb 2009 00:22 Link
wow, that second quote is the biggest bag of BS I've seen in a while. We must conform for our own safety.
It's more like we must conform for the people in charge's safety.

"It would be quite hillarious, were it not for all the innocent souls caught in the middle."

never truer. Maybe sumday they'll use paintball guns instead of real guns. I think a kid could recover from a rogue paintball.
F
FarmerBob (Little Upsilon)
03 Feb 2009 03:08 Link
Simplistic argument, DK. You can do much better than that.

Liberty guaranteed to citizens through rule of and protection of Law is hardly anarchy.

Old Ben's suggestion that throwing away freedoms in exchange for the promise of security was and is quite wise advice.
T
The Grand Poobah
03 Feb 2009 04:47 Link
and whatever happened to
"we have nothing to fear but fear itself"?

now it's
"Terrorists, destruction, terrorists, Evil Scourge, Death, Destruction, Terrorism, Evil Doers, Terrorists, terrorists and so many terrorists..Everywhere...your children will die..Terrorists"

/taken from speech by GW.
N
nix001 (Fearless Blue)
03 Feb 2009 06:01 Link
FB.
His suggestion was about giving up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.'

Liberty:
'a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.'

There are many liberties that people sacrifice every day to ensure their tolerance and acceptance of anothers rights and powers to act, believe, or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing.
Liberties are also sacrificed in order to understand better, which in turn brings security.


I think the more secure one feels in the world around one, the less one needs to distinguish and reaffirm ones belief from anothers belief. Creating a lesser need for ones own understanding of ones own liberty and a greater need for ones understanding of others liberty.

And visa versa. The less secure you feel in the world, the greater your need to feel in control, meaning the more you need to reaffirm your beliefs, so as to understand the possible threats from others on your liberty.
This in turn creates anarchy.

No one is free from the resposabilities of being God.