The end of freedom of speech. (Golden Rainbow)

Doesn't help that the media blasts people with the same horrific recycled crap. Day after day after day. People don't even leave their houses anymore.

And people laugh when I said "Dawn of the Dead" is metaphor for modern society.


"the less one needs to distinguish and reaffirm ones belief from anothers belief."

one should strive to distinguish themself. As long as they don't harm others in doing so. It's our individuality and uniqueness that seperates us from animals.
Anything else and we're just sheep. Even worse...Greyhounds chasing the rabbit.

And the issue at hand, boys, is the freedom to criticize.

The Dutch are saying, "if you criticize this religion, we will prosecute you."

Is this Equal Protection under the Law?
If so, then any criticism of any religion would be prosecuted. Start building prisons to house all those Immans. Islam, as currently practiced, is not terribly tolerant of other religions.

Or is it Special Protection under the Law?
If Islam is being accorded special, unique protection from criticism, then a right wing backlash against Muslims is virtually guaranteed. People fundamentally don't appreciate being officially ranked as second place citizens by their own governments, particularly when they are the natives.

All the Kum Ba Ya, "can't we just all get along?", feel good rationalizations of Western nations does not erase the rhetoric spewing forth from radical Muslim clerics literally preaching world domination. Not to mention terrorist organizations using that rhetoric as moral justification for their actions. And NO, you cannot legitimately state that Western religions or countries are doing the same. The West had its colonies and gave them up. The days of converting the native heathen by cooercion are long past in Christianity.

The freedoms we enjoy in the West were hard won and are priceless. You foolishly equate paying taxes and obeying speed limits with facing crimes like Blasphemy or Adultery as legitimate charges?
Small freedoms are sacrificed to ensure domestic civil society as they become more crowded and complex. That is true.

But we have courts to ensure that legislatures do not overstep their bounds and hinder freedoms that are considered essential to maintaining free societies. These independent Judiciaries being a foundation of the Rule of Law ,which in turn, is a hallmark of free nations.

If you truly cannot differentiate between the laws of Iran or Saudi Arabia and Great Britian or America, you need to do some serious study.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

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. <!-/Quote-!>

The argument was simple for a reason. That quote, standing alone as it was, implies that giving up any freedoms in the name of security is a bad idea. But there is a huge difference between giving up/surrendering/throwing away freedoms and compromising.

I would gladly give up my freedom of expression to ensure the freedom to life that my children ought to enjoy. Indeed, I would give up my right to life for the sake of a handfull of others.

That act in and of itself is surrendering a freedom for a security.

The true distinction should be made between surrendering your own freedoms for the security of others, and surrendering the freedoms of others for your own security.

The former is a noble act. The latter is the fall of self-determination. And it is the latter to which the Honourable Mr Franklin refered.

That was my point.

But I digress from the subject in hand.

I would differ, Kat, in that the distinction is between voluntarily limiting one's freedom of expression through self-censorship and having such limitations imposed by government through criminal penalty for unauthorized/disapproved speech.

Night and Day.

Prudence Vs Tyranny

Citizenship Vs Slavery

There are lines where compromise is no longer an option. Essential freedoms delineate some of those boundaries. Restrictions to them should be weighed very, very carefully, for what is lost is worth more than any conceivable traded gain.

What exactly do the Dutch authorities think that they are gaining here?
Not being targetted by Terrorists?
Not facing civil violence from their outraged Muslims?

The very fact that these seem to be factors in Dutch politics would seem to lend great weight to the vailidity underlying Wilder's "crime".

Sam had it exactly right. Appeasement never works, especially when civil rights are the price of temporary peace.

This entire post is exactly what "Freedom of Speech" is about. The free exchange of ideas without penalty for disagreement.

No one should be subject to imprisonment for expressing an idea. This approaches the realm of "thoughtcrime".

Freedom of speech is highly overrated. If removing it would stop 99% of the world from saying what it thinks, I'm all for it.

Vote Darke Katt to silence the idiots!
Vote Darke Katt for a despotic better tomorrow!

Besides, silencing the minorities is what democracy is all about!

"Besides, silencing the minorities is what democracy is all about!"

ah yes, that's exactly why we have fillabusters.

/see sarcasm

So, besides the socially-ingrained reasons, what exactly is it about "freedom of speech" that makes it so worthwhile to you all?

Katt, you are shameless.lol

Without the right to free speech the common man lack the ability to convey his opinions of government(or any idea)to others he feels may have his opinion if they were informed properly. Without this ability it become extremely difficult to fight the leadership of any oppressive government effectively.

The policy of the British crown in the American colonies was to restrict the colonists rights protesting the rule of the king. The colonists decried this removal of rights and protested not only only the kings authority to tax and restrict their rights but his whole legitimacy in the colonies. They declared themselves a sovereign people and fought the revolution and the war of 1812 and all other wars since to protect that sovereignty.


From my shrine in the Northwoods,

Yooper

Without Freedom of Speech we would not have our own self important blowhard actors and professors expounding on various and sundry reasons why our country, president, system of government, culture, or society sucks.

Where would logical, reasonable people get their lulz if this was the case?

We would be no better than Venuzuela and we all know lulz are hard to come by down there...

btw how many here are Dutch so they would have a reason to be outraged by decision of a dutch judge?

For the rest, and here i will assume a great deal, who are not Dutch but from the USA and UK here is something you can be outraged by if freedoms is what you are concerned with:


US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule

Evidence of how a British resident held in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp was tortured, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because of serious threats the US has made against the UK, the high court ruled today.

[snip]

"Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," they said.

[snip]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture

A genuine question, Bob. I would like to think that rights are important to us for significant personal reason rather than a result of the indoctrination of our respective societies.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The policy of the British crown in the American colonies was to restrict the colonists rights protesting the rule of the king. The colonists decried this removal of rights and protested not only only the kings authority to tax and restrict their rights but his whole legitimacy in the colonies. They declared themselves a sovereign people and fought the revolution and the war of 1812 and all other wars since to protect that sovereignty.<!-/Quote-!>

The colonies revolted over taxation without representation. This was not a removal of rights so much as a refusal to grant them in the first place, as no prior rights were revoked.

And the war of 1812 was not simple about "freedom." It was also about US imperialism as much as British. Expanisionism as well as economic.

Few wars have actually been fought over ideology. Most are fought over economics, politics or simply because of treaties. Influence, territory or finance. Ideology is usually one of those niceties thrown in afterwards to make the victor appear just. And as the victor always writes the history books, the victor is always right.

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Sir Winston Churchill

Claims of torture are unfounded at best and outright lies at most. And he claims he was tortured in Pakistan, while not surprising has little to do with the United States.

Well, I should probably leave the last word to "you" so "you" could keep the imaginary "moral" victory in this argument, and after this post "you" are free to have it.

The point was .. wtf is it to you what the judge in the Netherlands decided?

That "you" care so deep about freedom of speech and such ruling disturbs "you" in such a way "you" had cravings to voice it, I simply do not believe. If freedoms or human rights were what "you" hold dearest, then "you" would have to voice concerns long time ago, and I do not remember "you" voicing them.

My guess is that "you" either have issues with the Dutch - w3c or have issues with the Muslims - well, we all know why, but since I cannot prove that I will leave it with a guess with a reasonable doubt.

let me say this- The laws never says "you cannot say anything offensive". Everyone is offended by something. That does not mean it shouldn't be expressed.
People assume that because it offends just THEM that no one should say it, let alone hear it. And God forbid that a "child" would hear it. It would warp their fragile little minds. Despite the fact that the "Offendy"(n, One who is offended) is a racist biggot with a booze problem. It's actually that redundant.
Maybe, we should just accept each others opinions and remember that a difference in opinion, does not make us enemies.

To answer, Katt. "Freedom of Speech" is essentially "Freedom of Dissent."

The ability to influence one's society and government and through written or spoken word is absolutely critical to the maintanence of all freedoms.

The American Founding Fathers did their homework when establishing our Bill of Rights. Each Ammendment is a brick in the wall that protects our nation from tyranny, which is the natural evolutionary path of all governments. The freedom of speech may be metaphorically compared to the mortar between the bricks. Unrestricted communication is essential for citizens to be aware of what is occurring not just in their communities but the nation and world, as well allowing for organization and coordination of those with dissenting views.

Many would claim that there have too many inroads already into the Bill of Rights and I would be inclined to agree.

Note that every totalitarian regime in history has greatly restricted or outright controlled the means of communication within their territory.

Therefore, this freedom is not a question of indoctrination, essentially something having value only because we are told to value it, but for real world, practical reasons. Revolt is built into the American Bill of Rights. Each Right strengthens the ability of the populace to organize and resist would-be tyrants.

CRS Report for Congress
Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the 1ST Amendment
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

This document explains quite well, the very few limitations we allowed on freedom of speech and even these are under constant court challenge by different groups in our society.

@Austia.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

The populist authoritarianism that is the downside of political correctness means that anyone, sometimes it seems like everyone, can proclaim their grief and have it acknowledged. The victim culture, every sufferer grasping for their own Holocaust, ensures that anyone who feels offended can call for moderation, for dilution, and in the end, as is all too often the case, for censorship. And censorship, that by-product of fear - stemming as it does not from some positive agenda, but from the desire to escape our own terrors and superstitions by imposing them on others - must surely be resisted.
-Jonathon Green, "Did You Say 'Offensive?'," as posted on wordwizard.com

And finally:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire, Actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906<!-/Quote-!>

Thank you, Farmerbob. It is a pleaure to see that at least somebody understands.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Claims of torture are unfounded at best and outright lies at most.<!-/Quote-!>

It is well known and well documented that numerous detainees at "Gitmo" were tortured in one form or another, information not just comming from the captives themselves, but the few legal advisors which they were allowed, as well as accounts from soldiers who served there - torture being defined as cruel and unusual punishment, such as waterboarding.

Regardless of any physical torture, holding people captive for years on end without raising charges against them is a morally unjustifiable act. Attempts to justify it because of world politics are as much an affront on the freedoms which we seek to protect as the issue raised in the Netherlands.

In Britain today there are alot of people who are not happy with a comment made by one of our TV presenters. The comment was 'Gordon Brown (our PM) is a one eyed Scottish idiot'.
Now, Gordon Brown does only have the use of one eye, he is Scottish and to alot of people think he is an idiot.
But there has been an out cry by disabled people, Scottish people and idiots, calling for him to be punished.
Another presenter the other day said to some one, off screen, that a black tennis player looked like a golly wog. She has been saked.

Nix, who are these "alot of people" that are not happy with J Clarkson?

What you mean is a very few mis-guided PC minority interest groups took the opportunity to beat their collective drum, and yes hurl a few more rocks at a contoversial broadcaster. This cry of 'outrage' was taken up by a sensationalist media who have no other agenda than to keep the discrimination war embers glowing. The effectivity of their endeavours to create bad feeling and controversy is evident in the manner with which you report to the world stage that there is "alot" of "people who are not happy".

The same applies to Carol Thatcher, Margeret Thatchers daughter, and her green room comments which may or may not have been accurately reported and in/not in context.

Really Nix, I don't think most of the world give a damn...

Listen to the Radio phone in shows. They sounded like normal people to me. But then saying that.....Whats normal these days?
Anyways Cock....(Whats my name!.....Nix001!)....ney.........Are we not posting about freedom of speech?

The people that call radio phone-in shows are the very people I refer to as mis-guided PC minority groups.

And its Mr Cock to you n00x.

Sorry Mr Coky

I take it you have never taken part in one then.
Anyways...........Sometimes, someone will say something that everyone agrees makes sense. Priceless.
Of course there will always be one or two that go over board and risk the freedom's of our speech.
And they are the ones that make some touchy subjects too risky to talk about.
Which is the last thing that should happen to a touchy subject, for if theres a problem it should be talked about.
Like the subject matter at the start of this thread.

Do you think Geert Wilders took into concideration our freedoms of speech when he decided to conduct his own right to freedom of speech?
I don't.
And I think thats what the top Dutch court is worried about.
People destroying the opportunity for others to bring up and discuss these touchy subjects.

This is a touchy subject, at my own university one of the professors is being forced by the university to undergo, "sensitivity training" for using the phrase turban head. If I analyze nixoo1's statement"People destroying the opportunity for others to bring up and discuss these touchy subjects." it seems to be saying that the subject Geert brings to light isn't important. Whether you agree or not I think it should be realized as an important concern. Although personally his tacitness needs much improvement.

From my Shrine in the Northwoods,

Yooper