Don't know what to think about the Burqa law in France.

[infinix]

Can I draw a parallel from what the French gov't is doing to how the US gov't forced the Mormon church to abandon their practice of polygamy? Would that also be a case of the dominant culture trying to oppress a minority culture?

That raises the question of why the government is sticking its nose in marriage to begin with.

Practically? I think its tax related. The tax code is fucked up as it is. I can't fathom coming up with different tax codes for man who wants to marry anywhere between 1 and many wives. (or one wive and many husbands)

But are you raising the point just for the sake of argument or are you actually for polygamy?

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Well, I should not say "Europeans" but "European governments" is certainly applicable. You can't put a swastika in a video game in Germany, you can't hold a rally about hating Muslims in Britain, and apparently you can't even choose the cut of your clothes in France.

I cannot say I object to any of those things myself. One of many things I prefer about Europe to the United States. I don't see allowing Nazis the right to march through communities as something to boast about.

Yeah, I am perfectly willing to admit America's many flaws but I don't think your going to get much mileage out of saying freedom of speech is one of them. European countries should be appalled that there are people sitting in their jails because they wrote something that some people don't like.

 

[lurok]

Yeah, I am perfectly willing to admit America's many flaws but I don't think your going to get much mileage out of saying freedom of speech is one of them. European countries should be appalled that there are people sitting in their jails because they wrote something that some people don't like.

Examples please. Unless I'm living in some parallel universe, I don't believe Europe locks people up for something that some people don't like. Unless incitement to violence, terrorism, racism, etc...

 

[Myasishchev]

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

Should does not mean the same thing as shall.

I'm sorry, but where does should or shall even figure in above quotes?

I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion. If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

In contrast to what bluedana said, I'd say it's the phrasing that makes the first statement innocuous. Not only because it uses should, although that is sufficient, but also because the sentence fails to identify an actor who would do the shooting. Threats would seem to require someone to do the threatened act.

Can I draw a parallel from what the French gov't is doing to how the US gov't forced the Mormon church to abandon their practice of polygamy? Would that also be a case of the dominant culture trying to oppress a minority culture?

I didn't notice this earlier. Well, a legal relationship like marriage is not (or not merely) an expressive act. It's often said that there are three parties to a marriage--and the third is the state. Since marriage is the state's recognition of a relationship, that makes sense.

That said, it is of course a profane thing for the government to impose its will on sexual and marriage relationships. Just not the same kind of profane thing.

 

[Crisp Conditions]

What's going on here?

It is unconstitutional in the U.S. to declare a political party unconstitutional. And while we did have an ugly internal Civil War in the 19th Century, we still protect the rights of Civil War reenactors and the KKK.

This being said, the situation in Europe is (a) different, and (b) the right of Europeans to decide, not Americans, and I respect that.

I repeat what I said above. Even as an American, I don't argue that our system is superior to others. However, without a doubt, it is the one I prefer for myself.

 

[The Boy Who Cried Worf]

Yeah, I am perfectly willing to admit America's many flaws but I don't think your going to get much mileage out of saying freedom of speech is one of them. European countries should be appalled that there are people sitting in their jails because they wrote something that some people don't like.

Examples please. Unless I'm living in some parallel universe, I don't believe Europe locks people up for something that some people don't like. Unless incitement to violence, terrorism, racism, etc...

Holocaust denial will get you a trip to prison in some European countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#Prosecutions_and_convictions

 

[lurok]

In contrast to what bluedana said, I'd say it's the phrasing that makes the first statement innocuous. Not only because it uses should, although that is sufficient, but also because the sentence fails to identify an actor who would do the shooting. Threats would seem to require someone to do the threatened act.

All I can say is: wow And leave it there...

 

[lurok]

Holocaust denial will get you a trip to prison in some European countries.

Another (for a separate thread.) Personally (imo), I believe deniers should receive state sanctions. And I'm proud of European attitude to that. It is, after all, argued in court and sentenced accordingly. I thought holocaust denial was also issue in US but clearly wrong from that response. If you're prepared to use that as best prima facie defense for your position, so be it...

edit: on second thoughts, even using that example I find disgusting so not prepared to engage with Rage(whatever) further.

 

[Subcommander R.]

Yeah, I am perfectly willing to admit America's many flaws but I don't think your going to get much mileage out of saying freedom of speech is one of them. European countries should be appalled that there are people sitting in their jails because they wrote something that some people don't like.

Examples please. Unless I'm living in some parallel universe, I don't believe Europe locks people up for something that some people don't like. Unless incitement to violence, terrorism, racism, etc...

Example already given: holocaust denial. If you do it you're an ignorant sack of shit, but you don't deserve to be put in prison.

But also: try humming 'die fahne hoch' in Germany. At least in theory that will get you tossed in prison.

What makes American great, despite all our faults, is that we allow the freedom to be as big of a slime-bucket douchebag as you wish. And that guarantees that no matter how much of a minority you are, your rights will still be respected.

 

[lurok]

I genuinely can't believe I'm on forum with people who support/advocate/cite holocaust deniers in this day and age.. That's the best examples of European illiberalim that they can come up with?..

...Genuinely saddened, shocking and disturbing...

As a person of principle (sadly lacking in this day and age) unless I read satisfactory response from Rage(whatever) and SubcommanderR on their positions, I shall leave forum.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

I'd argue 'taking someone out and having them shot' constitutes a threat. Actual or implied. But maybe not in US...

Should does not mean the same thing as shall.

I'm sorry, but where does should or shall even figure in above quotes?

Didn't you read the original statement that we've been discussing? See below for where Myasishchev re-posted it...

edit: So as I understand as of this moment, we have debate that doesn't seem to include TrekBBS member(s) from country of origin of debate (for whatever reason can't divine).

Said member refused to join the debate. Others who wish to join in their place are invited to do so.

Should does not mean the same thing as shall.

I'm sorry, but where does should or shall even figure in above quotes?

I can say, all pedophiles should be lined up and shot because they're a menace to society. That's a protected opinion. If I say, Mr. Pedophile, you're a menace to society and I'm going to blow your head off, that's a threat (a crime that is not protected). If I say, Hey, everyone, this pedophile is a menace to society, let's blow his head off, it's incitement to violence (also a crime that is not protected).

In contrast to what bluedana said, I'd say it's the phrasing that makes the first statement innocuous. Not only because it uses should, although that is sufficient, but also because the sentence fails to identify an actor who would do the shooting. Threats would seem to require someone to do the threatened act.

Exactly. No specific individual threatened AND no specific person to do it; the speaker here does not say he or she would be willing to take such action.

I genuinely can't believe I'm on forum with people who support/advocate/cite holocaust deniers. The best examples that they can come up with...

...Genuinely saddened, shocking and disturbing...

Way to build a straw man.

The difference is in the US, the government wouldn't be the one to stop the Holocaust deniers--the PEOPLE would be the ones to tell the ignorant sacks of shit to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And let me tell you, we do so, loudly and proudly when people act so contemptibly. We the people make it clear what we will not tolerate. The government doesn't tell us what to think...our conscience does.

 

[Surfin' Santa]

. . . I thought holocaust denial was also issue in US but clearly wrong from that response. If you're prepared to use that as best prima facie defense for your position, so be it...

Oh, it’s certainly an issue in this country — just not a legal one. Holocaust deniers have as much right to spew their bullshit as Biblical creationists, 9/11 “truthers,” and people who say the Apollo moon landings never happened. No one should be prosecuted and punished for expressing a belief.

I genuinely can't believe I'm on forum with people who support/advocate/cite holocaust deniers.

 

[Myasishchev]

In contrast to what bluedana said, I'd say it's the phrasing that makes the first statement innocuous. Not only because it uses should, although that is sufficient, but also because the sentence fails to identify an actor who would do the shooting. Threats would seem to require someone to do the threatened act.

All I can say is: wow And leave it there...

Why? Because that's how the English language works?

Incidentally, I mentioned the example of Michel Houellebecq as someone who ran afoul of French anti-incitement laws, when all he did was call Islam a stupid religion, and all its followers morons, and say that he wished the religion would cease to exist. At no time did he commit an act of violence, or even advocate violence iirc. Was he acquitted? Yes, but the very notion of it becoming the issue of a trial (and an appeal by the complainants*) is very disturbing.

But hey, the US can suck too. Was our Sedition Act of 1918 okay? It locked up anarchists and communists. Are those factions vile enough to draw your ire and censorship? At what point do you, the discerning person, say "Okay, we've got the kind of political and social discourse we want. We can stop putting people in prison now." What happens when you are no longer the one making the decision about who does go? It's a very deep abyss at the edge of what constitutes acceptable restraints on speech.

*I'm dreadfully unfamiliar with French crim pro. The articles I've read describe private complainants and an appeal from a favorable verdict to a defendant, yet criminal sanctions and the phrase acquittal. It's weird. For present purposes, it does not matter to me whether it was a criminal or civil action, as that's only a difference in degree of reprehensibility.

 

[Subcommander R.]

I genuinely can't believe I'm on forum with people who support/advocate/cite holocaust deniers in this day and age.. That's the best examples of European illiberalim that they can come up with?..

...Genuinely saddened, shocking and disturbing...

As a person of principle (sadly lacking in this day and age) unless I read satisfactory response from Rage(whatever) and SubcommanderR on their positions, I shall leave forum.

There's no need to be so dramatic.

You seem to be confusing 'support/advocate/cite' with 'accept basic freedoms.'

Frankly I don't know where 'support' came from as I described any denier as a sack of shit. Should I have said inbred deranged sack of fucking shit? I support the right of any group to speak freely as long as their words do not pose a clear and present danger to the public.

Advocate? Certainly not. But their idiocy speaks for itself, revoking their right to expression only looks like validating their point to their ilk. Ignoring them is best.

Cite? Again, why would I cite someone I loathe? Especially someone I loathe with no facts on their side?

 

[Surfin' Santa]

. . . Was our Sedition Act of 1918 okay? It locked up anarchists and communists.

But the point is, we don’t do that kind of shit anymore. For all our country’s flaws, Americans can be justifiably proud that we have no prisoners of conscience.

 

[Myasishchev]

Frankly I don't know where 'support' came from as I described any denier as a sack of shit. Should I have said inbred deranged sack of fucking shit? I support the right of any group to speak freely as long as their words do not pose a clear and present danger to the public.

Stop denying twelve million corpses, monster!

 

[lurok]

Way to build a straw man. The difference is in the US, the government wouldn't be the one to stop the Holocaust deniers--the PEOPLE would be the ones to tell the ignorant sacks of shit to SHUT THE FUCK UP. And let me tell you, we do so, loudly and proudly when people act so contemptibly. We the people make it clear what we will not tolerate. The government doesn't tell us what to think...our conscience does.

Hah we the people/e pluribus unum. Liberals may shout and scream to no avail. For all our many faults, we act. (and if anyone believes in the PEOPLE, hah...)

Oh, it’s certainly an issue in this country — just not a legal one. Holocaust deniers have as much right to spew their bullshit as Biblical creationists, 9/11 “truthers,” and people who say the Apollo moon landings never happened. No one should be prosecuted and punished for expressing a belief.

NEVER in my life have I seen Holocaust lined up beside creationism, 9/11 conspiracies and moon landings. But if this what is on the internet, so be it....

myasischev...sorry, beside these bigger issues, can't even respond...

 

[Subcommander R.]

Frankly I don't know where 'support' came from as I described any denier as a sack of shit. Should I have said inbred deranged sack of fucking shit? I support the right of any group to speak freely as long as their words do not pose a clear and present danger to the public.

Stop denying twelve million corpses, monster!

Yes, I'm the big bad evil nazi I guess. Let me go buy some jackboots and run around yelling 'sieg heil.'

 

[lurok]

There's no need to be so dramatic.

Oh, that's so sweet from someone who's cited holocaust deniers as defensible case.

Yes, I'm the big bad evil nazi I guess. Let me go buy some jackboots and run around yelling 'sieg heil.'

As they say, if shoe fits.... But look, Rommies/Nazis/whatever, maybe we should just agree to differ? I don't think we'll change eithers' mind no matter how much we intellectually debate

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

Wow, lurok, you really think you're evolved enough to decide what others should and shouldn't say? ONLY people of your ideological ilk should be allowed to control speech for everybody else?

The First Amendment is there to protect against people trying to shut down speech "for our own good." Because frankly, as soon as an elite class claims to know what's good for us all, they are a danger.