All societies have some rules about behaviour, often coupled to religion or custom. Even when dealing with members of one's own culture we sometimes struggle to avoid offence and conflicts but even more so if we live in a multicultural society.
In some countries, blasphemy is illegal, in others not. In the latter case, laws against blasphemy are substituted by laws against "hateful speech" or "incitement". But those laws merely transpose the underlying dilemma because such terms as "hateful speech" or "incitement" are themselves culture-driven, and vary, even from person to person, let alone between, say, different religions or countries.
We can avoid all these "problems" by avoiding communication with everyone, but that's not a viable solution so we have invented this concept of Free Speech and hope the problem will go away.
So are there limits? How do we recognise them?
Blasphemy and slander are by far clearer concepts than hateful speech. As to incitement, I thought it sounded weird and by looking it up, sure enough "Incitement was an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It was an inchoate offence. It consisted of persuading, encouraging, instigating, pressuring, or threatening so as to cause another to commit a crime." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement So, incitement is a serious form of complicity.
Free speech is a curious phenomenon. I suppose it was invented because free thinking (which was the incipient form of free speech) was not so easily regulated. Free speech can be heard in audio and seen in print, so it's more clearly a social phenomenon and can thus be regulated.
But I'm quite positive that ultimately only free thinking matters. I grew up in the Soviet Union, the country known for its suppression of free speech. However, the level of free thinking was notable. People were able to read between the lines, encrypt and unencrypt messages, think before they acted etc. This is all for the best, right? Now we have free speech, everybody can say pretty much what they want, and there's so much said and written that nobody has time to digest it. Consequently, nobody can tell a serious statement from an unserious one and good ideas are not heard. Free thinking suffers under free speech.
All speech or expression of idea should be considered soundly protected as free speech until such expression &/or statements are proven to cause serious criminal harm to another, or others, in a manner totally unacceptable by society because it is proven to cause serious criminal harm, & that such harm is subject to penalty via existing law.
What is said or expressed via any medium may be repugnant, unpopular, & despised by the general public, but unless it causes serious criminal harm to society as a whole, those statements & expressions must be permitted in any free & open society, & also protected by law in order to protect those making the statements or expressions in question.
Blasphemy, in a free & open society, should be considered no better or worse than any other statement or expression.
Some such public expressions, Smilie, can corrupt children's souls, eg.
So can a lot of politically correct rubbish, but both would (& should) be protected as Freedom of Speech irregardless of our likes or dislikes.
I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.
I'm all for free speech and very much against politically correct registration. But there are fuzzy boundaries around what we"can" say or write. In practice I imagine that most of those limits are self-generated from, say,a sense of politeness (a sort of self enforced PC!), but some are external such as the laws of libel and when a court case is in progress. The latter is interesting and difficult to avoid when a nice juicy court case is in progress with lots to talk about. In the UK just recently, the Prime Minister was publicly chastised for commenting when a court case was in progress due to the possibility of his remarks affecting the outcome.
I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.
This is how it sounds to me: Blasphemy and slander are insults or lies against some authority or normality in the society, while hateful speech is just an insult without the distinction.
Why would someone's slur of insults matter against something non-existent or against something irrelevant regarding a culture? There would be no point in regulating such insults, even though the insults may be seriously intended as insults. The regulation only matters when the target of the insults or lies matters in the society.
Then there are unintended insults. When someone gets offended due to your ignorance, the offence is (usually) pardonable or mitigated, because it was unintentional. An unintentional insult is neither hateful nor blasphemy nor slander in the proper sense.
Hateful speech only seems to look at the intention and doesn't distinguish the target. This is why hateful speech has more Orwellian qualities as a legal concept and poses a serious threat to free speech, while the concepts of blasphemy and slander are more free from problems. Of course, finally it matters what the law actually says. Words may shift in meaning.
Regardless, whether there be a basis in fact or not, speech that is distasteful or insulting, should have no bearing on whether the speaker can or can't exercise it's use under the auspices of freedom of speech protection.
Under the protection of freedom of speech, I could insult anyone I so please, as long as the insults I hurl could not be construed as being directly insightful of physical harm by others upon the individual or individuals I insult.
The same goes for hate speech, which has no actual basis in law & was borne solely out of Political Correctness, that unless the speech was directly attributable to insighting physical violence by others upon the object of the hate speech, such speech should be rightfully protected by freedom of speech in a free & open society.
Never at any cost, within a free & open society, should Political Correctness ever be allowed to trump free speech in any way, manner, or form.
I don't agree that blasphemy is easier to understand/identify that hateful speech. On the context of a multicultural exchange it's quite easy to make hateful remarks but one would not necessarily know what was blasphemous and what wasn't.
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.
On the Blasphemy thing,, Mac, yes it is very squishy, very cultural dependent and very individual. Some people actually think singing is blasphemous, others that wearing funny clothes ....Well one could go on, and on, and on, and on and still not absorb all the daft stuff that is out there.
But I'd not want to spoil someone's Christmas by setting up an advertising boarding within the Vatican insisting there is no God but Santa Claus, not would I care to stand on the centre of Mecca mouthing off about the shortcomings of some prophet or other. Such adventures can spoil your whole day. Avoiding that bad hair day is not about preventing free speech, outs about survival.
SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm. However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?
But I'd not want to spoil someone's Christmas by setting up an advertising boarding within the Vatican insisting there is no God but Santa Claus, not would I care to stand on the centre of Mecca mouthing off about the shortcomings of some prophet or other. Such adventures can spoil your whole day. Avoiding that bad hair day is not about preventing free speech, outs about survival.
Of course not, you're not an asshole.
But then again, this isn't the Vatican or Mecca and people who come here to preach to the choir and not to have their feelings hurt by the existence of dissent didn't understand what this forum is for.
SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm. However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?
In this case I agree with the rules at the old place - if you feel the need to post personal attacks you need to step away from the keyboard and calm the hell down. If you can't do that some moderator may help you out with a timed ban ( after warnings etc. etc. ).
Of course not, you're not an asshole.
But then again, this isn't the Vatican or Mecca and people who come here to preach to the choir and not to have their feelings hurt by the existence of dissent didn't understand what this forum is for.
Not an Asshole? I must try harder.
Actually the oddities we got in D&D gave us a lot of fun. I hope we get some here too. Katsung - all is forgiven!
SF you seem to limit your definition of hateful speech to having been proven to cause physical harm. However non-physical harm can be very damaging to an individual. In a court of law one is required to tell the truth, why should that not extend, by convention, to every day life. Also why wait till someone is killed before deciding that inciting someone to kill him is wrong?
In this case I agree with the rules at the old place - if you feel the need to post personal attacks you need to step away from the keyboard and calm the hell down. If you can't do that some moderator may help you out with a timed ban ( after warnings etc. etc. ).
Ok.....this is a whole new
'kettle of fish'.....
The Freedom of Speech, the protected right I enjoy as an American via the First Amendment to the US Constitution in my daily real life, & the
Freedom of Speech as relative to forums ---- this forum.
Two, distinctly different animals so to speak.
When speaking of the latter, I personally agree 100%......as String might put it, out of
'survival'. Forum survival, unless I really get pissed off (which has never happened) where I would gladly toss in any membership to a
'forum' if principals were truly in the balance.
That said, I stand by my original statement(s) when dealing with the former.
I will defend, to the death, my
'real world' Freedom of Speech just as vigorously (maybe even more-so) as I would my Right to Own & Bear Arms, & just about any/all of the other
"Bill of Rights" (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FUnited_States_Bill_of_Rights&ei=bdjFUtjTDY-aiQfm5oGQDQ&usg=AFQjCNEeua8IDS2Qca1JEopWmAE7YAWVJg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.aGc)Freedoms (the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution).
JFYI...... 'To the death' is not a statement of bravado. No, it's something I am totally prepared to back up with personal action ----- that is at last resort, if push should ever come to shove. Anyone that truly knows me, knows that on this I never make light.
In the past, I have defended my rights to the eternal detriment of those that opposed me. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
In the future I would hope & appreciate, that the parameters of discussion would be clearly defined, as is obviously absent in this particular thread, that here we are only speaking of activity in these (or other) forums, & not of the
'real world'.
I'm going to break my own self-imposed ban about replying-- or even opening-- threads that have a religious character because this one has to do with "free speech" and Smiley brings up an important-- but often misunderstood-- point.
True, the First Amendment does grant-- or maybe the word is protect-- the right of "free speech". Actually, it protects the freedom of the press, but leave that for the moment or we'll never stop.
That "freedom" is not an absolute however. It doesn't give me the right to call other users here bad names without consequences, for example. That freedom really extends to the person who owns the press, not necessarily to the guy who writes an angry letter to the editor. So, if I have a bad falling out with Macallan (for example) and decide to say on open forum exactly what I think of him and his ancestors, I can expect that somebody is going to step in and do something about it, up to and including banning-- whether temporary or permanent depending on the situation. My right of free speech has very definite limits and if I trespass those limits I will suffer the results of my actions.
I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.
Blasphemy-- well, that's something else. There, you're trampling on someone's religious beliefs and it becomes important where you do it. Some parts of this world still have stoning to death as a punishment, so I would think twice before saying anything while in one of those parts of the world. Here in the States-- it seems that belief in God is fair game and you can say anything against anybody's god-- and probably be celebrated for your brave stance against superstitions. Different parts of the world have different ways of dealing with blasphemy, pay attention to where you are physically before shooting off your bazoo against your fellow man's beliefs.
I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.
The Dutch constitution, it's implementation details, and European rules on the matter of freedom of expression are obviously the only ones directly relevant to this forum. As a rule of thumb, article 7 of the Dutch constitution grants roughly the same rights as the first amendment of the US constitution.
When speaking of the latter (about free speech in the forums), I personally agree 99.99947%......as String might put it, out of 'survival'. Forum survival..........
I think that should put it into prospective Mike (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
When I speak/comment, I speak & comment out of personal experience, of which there might be a few subjects that I am fervent about. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/smileys/yikes.png)
That may cloud issues for others of different cultures & levels of experience, those who I've never conversed with, but rest assured I know the difference in both subject matter, & matters somewhat unique to my homeland.
Sometimes paths might cross, for contrary to some opinion, I am simply human ----
American first yes, but I can always err as a human nevertheless. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/goodbadir6.gif)
Blasphemy is proper of irrelevant people. Being a strict religious concept, none of erudite religions refers to it these days.
It's certainly at the level of atheists and agnostics.
Free speech has nothing to do with "blasphemy" .
Free speech has nothing to do with "blasphemy" .
I agree, in that blasphemy is no more or less important than any other speech in the
'real' world..
True, the First Amendment does grant-- or maybe the word is protect-- the right of "free speech". Actually, it protects the freedom of the press, but leave that for the moment or we'll never stop.
Actually it keeps the government ( and until the 14th amendment only the federal government ) from interfering. It does not prevent me from censoring your letter to my newspaper.
I'm not even really sure to what extent the American constitution pulls any weight here anyway because this server is not on American soil as far as I know, and trying to insist on "rights" while in somebody else's house never seems to come to a good end.
Probably the most misunderstood point of US law. 'Free speech' does not give me the right to preach on your front porch, nor does it force anyone to listen or prevent anyone from telling me to shut the hell up. It prevents the government from telling me what I can or can not say, within certain limits.
It prevents the government from telling me what I can or can not say.........
Correct.
That was the obvious purpose of the Founding Fathers regarding the
"Bill of Rights", which they inseverablely incorporated into the US Constitution as it's first 10 Amendments --- Protecting American Citizens from abusive government rule.
That said, free speech between private individuals begins at the speakers lips, & ends at the listener's ears -- so to speak. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Secrets004.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biggrin.gif)
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.
If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(
I agree with the distinction between the "Real World" and such things as forums, although the boundary is a little blurred. For example I guess most would temper their language to the less explicit swear words if Granny was around rather than exercising their freedom of speech for all to hear. The same is true in a bible-reading session a forum or a kindergarten. One is there reacting to self control rather than government control of course, even in a club or a forum where the administration might be thought of as having some form of authority role. It's arguable whether Granny, like forums, are in the "Real World" but in either case judgement on these things are often subjective. It's only when laws are defined to the last specific detail with penalties attached that they become important. That's where Governments can interfere too much. One could argue that an individual's decision not to say something is, in fact, a form of free speech in that it remains a personal decision on what to say and what not to say, uncoerced by overwhelming penalties.
Nevertheless there remain some issues which are quite legitimately and widely accepted as being limitations to free speech. I mentioned some before but no-one picked me up on that as far as I can see, They are libel and commenting during the conduct of a trial where both can result in harm to someone who does not deserve it; not necessarily physical harm but harm nonetheless.
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.
If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(
They can wail & gnash their teeth to their little hearts' content.
For example I guess most would temper their language to the less explicit swear words if Granny was around rather than exercising their freedom of speech for all to hear. The same is true in a bible-reading session a forum or a kindergarten.
Well, this is neither Granny's living room nor a bible study group. What good would a debates & discussions forum be if everyone had to make sure not to (possibly) hurt anyone else's feelings?
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.
If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(
They can wail & gnash their teeth to their little hearts' content.
Unless you're physically in a radical Islamic state when you make the blasphemous statement. Then, you could have a problem. Wailing and gnashing of teeth while selecting stones to throw--- uh--- it was nice knowing you--.
Well, this is neither Granny's living room nor a bible study group. What good would a debates & discussions forum be if everyone had to make sure not to (possibly) hurt anyone else's feelings?
(I want a quote shortcut. Not need, just want...)
Let me narrow the discussion. Let me take it in the context as not a "freedom of
speech [whatsoever! ???]" but rather
a freedom of expressing your own opinion on issues...
Blasphemy is an incredibly squishy concept. First, how would you determine which religions, beliefs, superstitions etc. are worth protecting? It's either all or none. I for one find public displays of ancient torture instruments seriously offensive.
If you pick the wrong religion, say, radical Islam, you're likely to find out quickly. :'(
They can wail & gnash their teeth to their little hearts' content.
Unless you're physically in a radical Islamic state when you make the blasphemous statement.
I'm not and neither is anyone else here. What's the point of this statement?
Well, this is neither Granny's living room nor a bible study group. What good would a debates & discussions forum be if everyone had to make sure not to (possibly) hurt anyone else's feelings?
No good at all IMHO, There is a very big gap between the Nervous Nellie approach to PC where you don't or can't do things just in case some obscure harm can happen and downright and personal harassment or extreme insults verging on the suicidal. That is where judgement on what is reasonable comes into play, first by the person who makes the post, secondly by the people who might be inclined to report the post and lastly by any passing moderator. The old D&D had it about right I think and all of us were happily rude to each other at sometime or other. Long may it continue.
.......The old D&D had it about right I think and all of us were happily rude to each other at sometime or other. Long may it continue.
<here in DnD>Well said!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/applause001.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
The old D&D had it about right I think and all of us were happily rude to each other at sometime or other. Long may it continue.
Really? What would you know about it, Brit! ;D ;)
The old D&D had it about right I think and all of us were happily rude to each other at sometime or other. Long may it continue.
Really? What would you know about it, Brit! ;D ;)
Hey, Michiganian, give the guy a freekin' break!
Just because everyone knows that the Brits are hopelessly inferior Homo Sapiens to the last, no need to rub it in ..................... repeatedly ............................... regardless of how much fun it is! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif)
So can a lot of politically correct rubbish, but both would (& should) be protected as Freedom of Speech irregardless of our likes or dislikes.
An interesting phenomenon is when political incorrectness evolves into a from of political correctness itself some circles. It's also interesting when the "politically incorrect" crowd staunchly defends freedom of speech for view that they agree with and try to shut it all counter arguments. Political correctness isn't even necessarily liberal , some is but "correct" speech occurs across the political spectrum.
'Politically Correctness', or as 'Cooney also put it 'Political Incorrectness', has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of 'real life' , Public Freedom of Speech. The only way PC or PI might have any affect on 'real life' Public Freedom of Speech is how they erroneously attempt to define Freedom of Speech, usually in their own behalf, & on how it applies to them.
In our forums though, where the speech is shared between private parties (non-government), all speech is therefore subject to the rules & regulations of the forum in which the speech is being expressed, & in the end free speech between private individuals begins at the speakers lips (keyboard), & ends at the listener's ears ( or eyes when dealing with the written word) at the sole discretion of the forum moderators.
'Real Life' , Public Freedom of Speech, should be protected at all costs, especially from those that attempt to pervert any group or individuals right to Free Speech through erroneous interpretations disguised as being in line with some form of Political Correctness.
Just because what is said might be emotionally upsetting or distressful to any group or person should not preclude what is being said from being protected by the Freedom of Speech, unless what is said is said with malice of forethought in order to specifically incite a criminal act against the person or group.
Just because what is said might be emotionally upsetting or distressful to any group or person should not preclude what is being said from being protected by the Freedom of Speech, unless what is said is said with malice of forethought in order to specifically incite a criminal act against the person or group.
+1 http://vorige.nrc.nl/opinie/article1654061.ece/The_Right_to_Offend
Just because what is said might be emotionally upsetting or distressful to any group or person should not preclude what is being said from being protected by the Freedom of Speech, unless what is said is said with malice of forethought in order to specifically incite a criminal act against the person or group.
+1 http://vorige.nrc.nl/opinie/article1654061.ece/The_Right_to_Offend
This is exactly the concept I objected to: Looking at the offence only keeping in mind the intention, not the outcome. When you look only at the intention, then how can you judge? Are you such a competent mind-reader of other people's minds? When you look only at the intention, then you could wiggle out from any kind of damage you caused by citing your noble intentions.
So, you have to look at the outcome too. And no, the outcome is not just someone's short-term hurt feelings. The outcome is express truth and revealed facts. To me it's obvious that, in ideal, freedom of speech isn't about my or anyone else's right to speak up about something, anything. It's not about letting everyone speak their mind to their heart's content regardless of the content. Instead, it's about letting people discuss and debate to find a solution or a better way, while it's understood that lies are still lies, slander is still slander, and blasphemy is still blasphemy. Even though the last concept has no legal purpose these days, isn't it evident enough that it has no constructive purpose?
This is exactly the concept I objected to: […] And no, the outcome is not just someone's short-term hurt feelings. The outcome is express truth and revealed facts.
That means you're not objecting at all.
This is exactly the concept I objected to: […] And no, the outcome is not just someone's short-term hurt feelings. The outcome is express truth and revealed facts.
That means you're not objecting at all.
Let's take the Muhammad cartoons. The outcome was outrage across the Muslim world, i.e. it was an emotional offence. That's right, I said this alone doesn't make the cartoons wrong. However, is there any truth or facts in the cartoons? Even your article doesn't say that truth was the intention. The intention was to express an opinion. The question is, was it a constructive opinion? Was there any constructive purpose at all? The most evident purpose I see was to make a joke. So, were the cartoons funny? This last question is the only purpose where the cartoons can be coherently tied to. Again, there's no truth or facts in just being funny.
Therefore I object. Please exercise some consideration when you intend to be funny and nothing else. The cartoons had nothing else in them besides the purpose of being funny, but it didn't work out due to ill-chosen topic. There was nothing constructive or educating in them, nothing even remotely promoting critical thinking or such. Lack of consideration is the opposite of critical thinking.
You're quite wrong about the context of those cartoons. But I suppose it is true that even if you were right, I'd still disagree with you. Humor is part of free inquiry, and if some of it is unsophisticated you can mock it or deride it; banning is for the weak. If your faith, standpoint or conviction can't stand a little criticism or crude humor, maybe it shouldn't stand at all.
For example, I'd call the image Smiley likes to post of some kind of Calvin knock-off peeing on gun control crude and unconstructive. But why should that be a reason to ban it?
Hey, Michiganian, give the guy a freekin' break!
He knows me well enough to shrug it off and that I only mean about a tenth of what I utter.
String is King.
Frans, Ersi, the question of such humour's effect is about the perception. Which is corporal/individual/psychic/whatnot.
If someone can be offended by an image of a person they respect (the prophet or such), then someone else can more or less to a similar extent be shocked at an "eating shit" emoticon.
There are people are here there are their attitudes with them.
Well, I don't think I've seen any of these before (http://www.sherv.net/shit-emoticons.html).
I suppose Smiley's gonna like'em(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sherv.net%2Fcm%2Femoticons%2Fshit%2Fpooping-gymnastics-smiley-emoticon.gif&hash=9d0a06721591476836a1a03393edf927" rel="cached" data-hash="9d0a06721591476836a1a03393edf927" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/shit/pooping-gymnastics-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Hey, Michiganian, give the guy a freekin' break!
He knows me well enough to shrug it off and that I only mean about a tenth of what I utter.
String is King.
I am distraught. But in time I shall recover.
Now where did I put that crown?
You're quite wrong about the context of those cartoons. But I suppose it is true that even if you were right, I'd still disagree with you. Humor is part of free inquiry, and if some of it is unsophisticated you can mock it or deride it; banning is for the weak. If your faith, standpoint or conviction can't stand a little criticism or crude humor, maybe it shouldn't stand at all.
For example, I'd call the image Smiley likes to post of some kind of Calvin knock-off peeing on gun control crude and unconstructive. But why should that be a reason to ban it?
Well, let's be clear that I do not favour banning in this case either. It's a cartoon, for cryssakes. It doesn't even pretend to be for truth or facts or anything. This format is frankly out of reach of laws that regulate slander and lies. Sure, I regard the cartoons blasphemous and it's pretty clear that they were intended this way too, but I am perfectly okay that blasphemy is eradicated from laws in multicultural or religiously neutral societies. In this sense I agree with you, Muslims should have handled it with more cool.
Then again, were the same "opinions" expressed in an opinion piece of a newspaper, the case would more likely come under litigation. And as a regular news item, no Western law would allow it even when you appeal to free speech, freedom of press or things like that, right? So the cartoons get a pass only because they are cartoons, not because free speech as such. There is no "freedom to offend".
Truth & Facts have no determination of what is or isn't free speech.
I am free to lie my ass off about anyone or anything I so please, as long as I don't incite direct criminal violence against the person or persons I lie about.
No American court will say I can't do that, but if I be found guilty of slandering someone, someone who must first take me to civil court & file a complaint for such, then the act of slandering is what I'd be penalized for if found guilty by a jury of my peers, & not the Free Speech I initially freely exercised.
I would be free to exercise my right to lie & slander as often as I please --- as often as I wish.....& possibly be subject to penalty in court every time I do so.
I say possibly because the government can't try me for slander on it's own volition, no....another entity, other than government, must first bring suit against me as a prerequisite to further a finding of potential guilt in court.
That's the way it aught to be, but as I well know, there are places in this world that think quite negatively toward free speech, & have much narrower opinions on how it may be used & exercised, & also how any penalty for abusing their narrow definitions are to be handed out.
To me such governments could very well be promoting tyranny upon the citizens, & should, in my opinion, be overthrown post haste.
Even deliberate libel and slander is difficult to prove. I think if was otherwise, at the end of each election each candidate would probably try to sue to the shit out of each other. Hrm, that might not be a bad idea. Let's make it so candidates can sue each other over misleading statements. Soon both the DNC and RNC would be bankrupt from all the lawsuits 8)
Now what I was bitching about before was the some conservative groups seem to demand everyone else walk on eggshells. Religious groups are particularly guilty of this. This is also a form of political correctness. But they slander entire groups of people, the LGBT community in particular. So when we offer a rebuttal to that, they scream "PC!" It's like they're not self-aware enough to see the irony.
SF noted PC isn't valid in the real world. Isn't it, particularly the work place. Being politically incorrect about racial and sexual minorities is usually a good way to lose your job. This isn't because some leftist or liberal agenda, but if your crew is all offended and arguing with each other, the work won't get done. Recently at work, a group of African Americans were calling each other "nigga" and addition they tended to over generalize "white" behavior.* There was a big investigation and everyone, including your's truly was interrogated. In fact, I even had to write a report about what I witnessed :p . So from a retiree's perspective, politically correct speech might be irrelevant but the rest of us need to watch what say or face dire consequences.
*in fact, some of those low level workers comments were so comically wrong that it was more funny then offensive. For example, most white people are sexual perverts. Oh yeah, I mentioned that I would heat ramen noodles in the microwave and suddenly I was "ghetto" and not white ;D
Even deliberate libel and slander is difficult to prove. I think if was otherwise, at the end of each election each candidate would probably try to sue to the shit out of each other. Hrm, that might not be a bad idea. Let's make it so candidates can sue each other over misleading statements. Soon both the DNC and RNC would be bankrupt from all the lawsuits 8)
Isn't it the fact that laws in every country provide this opportunity for candidates to sue the shit out of each other, and they actually do from time to time, even though it's hard to prove? E.g. rape is also notoriously hard to prove (the intercourse may be provable, but the nature of the intercourse is word against word), but is forbidden everywhere.
Being politically incorrect about racial and sexual minorities is usually a good way to lose your job. This isn't because some leftist or liberal agenda, but if your crew is all offended and arguing with each other, the work won't get done.
Ok, so what your saying is virtually identical to what I said. In the public world between private individuals if you say something that is offensive to another person, because of Political Correctness, private individuals or corporations can limit your freedom of speech, not because they have a right to, but because the person being penalized allows them to.
It's not the speech that I or you can't say because government won't let me or you, or the speech is prohibited in any way, no it's private concerns that penalize us because they don't want us to express our right to the freedom of speech, they have leverage (your/my job), & because they use false argument of Political Correctness as their reasoning for penalizing us.
If anyone lost their job for what you described earlier, would they go to court to sue for their job back....no, because the expense of litigation would probably be way too prohibitive, & not because the actual speech is prohibited in law.
I submit, if that person who lost their job had big bucks to front up --- that the job they lost they just had to have back --- if they wished to take it to court, they would probably win based on the precepts of the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech.
But in reality, those suits never take place because of the cost, & cost alone. Most people fired don't think the job they lost is worth the humongous cost of litigation .... the outlay necessary to fight the firing.
The Freedom of Speech takes the hit, & most people will probably grumble, solely because they lack the ability to backup the principal of fighting for it.
Those Political Correctness people that agree with the firing feel that they have proven that the Freedom of Speech is limited, when all along all they have prevailed in proving is that on any given day incorrect decisions can & do prevail, & people are willing to temporarily forfeit their Right to their Freedoms.
Political Correctness did not prove that the Freedom of Speech is limited at all.
In the end free speech between private individuals will always begin at the speakers lips, & end at the listener's ears.
It's all fair game.
Well, I don't think I've seen any of these before.
Please don't give Josh any new toys.
Here's an example where Free Speech and Blasphemy have collided.
Blasphemy case: Briton in Pakistan sentenced to death (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25874580)
Here's an example where Free Speech and Blasphemy have collided.
Blasphemy case: Briton in Pakistan sentenced to death
Based on the report Pakistan isn't a country that honors the notion of free speech. The sad aspect of the case in Pakistan is that it is tied to the death penalty.
The death penalty exists in a number of US states, but not for blasphemy.
A Mexican citizen has been executed in Texas for killing a Houston police officer despite pleas and diplomatic pressure from Mexico’s government and the U.S. State Department to halt the punishment.
As of 2003 the following was still law in the state of Maryland.
If any person, by writing or speaking, shall blaspheme or curse God, or shall write or utter any profane words of and concerning our Saviour, Jesus Christ, or of and concerning the Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, he shall, on conviction, be fined not more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both fined and imprisoned as aforesaid, at the discretion of the court.
A Mexican citizen has been executed in Texas for killing a Houston police officer despite pleas and diplomatic pressure from Mexico’s government and the U.S. State Department to halt the punishment.
The problem wasn't that anyone thought he's innocent but that he's a mexican citizen and the mexican authorities haven't been informed in time so he didn't get consular counsel. In other words, procedures weren't followed.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/offtopic.gif)
The problem wasn't that anyone thought he's innocent but that he's a mexican citizen and the mexican authorities haven't been informed in time so he didn't get consular counsel. In other words, procedures weren't followed.
Ten years not enough time?
Somebody dropped the ball somewhere.
Well, IMHO, in the end justice was served long overdue.
Not for killin' a cop, but for being an Illegal who killed an American Citizen in America.
Otherwise, to an extent I'm against the death penalty .................
I'm all for the 1930's style of penal institution that featured
'chain gang' slop on the plate, hard labor for life for convicted murderers & child molesters/rapists.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkdVqKcb.png&hash=8bc69d5a3f5a7fd15303ef4083d3676e" rel="cached" data-hash="8bc69d5a3f5a7fd15303ef4083d3676e" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/kdVqKcb.png)
[glow=black,2,300]
Now, back on Topic...........[/glow]
Majority of US college campuses becoming [glow=black,2,300]‘no-free-speech’[/glow] zones.[/i][/size]
Despite the explicit protections of the First Amendment, a majority of US institutions of higher learning enforce rules that severely restrict free speech on campus, according to a new study.
According to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), 59 percent of US colleges and universities received a ‘red light’, meaning that the schools endorse policies that the watchdog group says impede on First Amendment rights.
A red-light institution, according to FIRE, is one that has “at least one policy both clearly and substantially restricting freedom of speech, or barring public access to its speech-related policies by requiring a university log-in and password for access.”
Out of 427 schools surveyed in the report, about one out of every six enforced “free speech zone” policies – legislation that limits student protests and other “expressive activities” to small and isolated parts of campus..................continued
How the Progressive Left's
'Institutions of Propaganda & Brainwashing', both publicly funded & privately funded, have started to decay, rather than improve & enlighten the easily influenced minds of the young.
What do you think?
Let's make sure to use a state-run, government funded Russian ragsheet to criticize US colleges, which typically are bastions of free-speech. I have to agree with none other than Glenn Beck himself. It's the new Pravda. It's a shame you lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate the irony.
Colleges and universities typically have no political leanings at all, but when they do it's just as likely to be conservative as liberal (if not more so, with all the religiously affiliated campuses and such)
Also, just because something's in the first amendment doesn't mean it's about free speech, and a university campus is probably some kind of privately owned public space. Should the same rules apply to privately owned public spaces as they do to public spaces? I don't know, probably, but I imagine it means the first amendment is quite unaffected by whatever goes on in one of them.
I tend to think the First Amendment applies to public universities, although private ones are free to make their own rules. The article itself seems to be reaching for things to complain about. "Longwood University in Virginia limits speeches, demonstrations and literature distribution to one location, and requires the area to be reserved five days in advance. " Yes, you do normally need to reserve a public space in advance to avoid scheduling conflicts and such :p
I checked out that FIRE site mentioned in the article, and it didn't seem to know my university exists, despite being one the largest and THE fastest growing in the state and officially recognized as a center for excellent in both creative arts and biology and being around since 1927. I searched by name, and then by state
Around here almost all universities are public, although I don't know how precisely that affects freedom of assembly and protest, but for better or worse, in the US there are rather a lot of private institutions of higher education.
Anyway, not to say movements to curtail freedoms aren't relevant, but what we're talking about here tends to be about university administrations trying to take away freedoms we've only had for a few decades or so, if even that long. Or quite possibly we're not even talking about taking away anything at all, but simply about challenging the status quo. The fact that I don't have a clue says a lot about the article. The fact that it's funded by the Russian feds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)) somehow doesn't inspire the relative amount of confidence I have in the likes of the NOS, VRT, ARD/ZDF, BBC, and NPR.
Here's a little twist. I was able to locate the original FIRE report. In the report, the organization notes the percentage of campuses practising what they consider censorship actually fell quite a bit.
They note the 59% figure mentioned above but also:
This represents a nearly 17-point decline in red light schools from six years ago (PDF), when policies at 75% of schools seriously restricted student speech.
and further:
“We are heartened to see another drop in the percentage of campuses maintaining restrictive speech codes,” FIRE’s Director of Policy Research Samantha Harris said. “There is much more work to be done, however, particularly in light of the confusing messages coming from the federal government about the relationship between harassment and free speech.
Note the word "another."
The full report can be found here (http://issuu.com/thefireorg/docs/2014_speech_code_report_final?e=6851166/6373933). Obviously feel free to peruse it. I personally found the interface annoying because it seems to change based on user's behaviour and I thought you could click on the table of contents to get to certain section but instead it only magnifies the document. :p
I still question if some of the polices really constitute censorship, such having the reserve a space to hold your rally. That's obviously note saying you can't hold it, just that somebody needs the space during that time period, so another time slot is available. They also complain about harassment and anti-bullying policies. The First Amendment is about having the ability to offer criticism to the administration and far less about a bully's ability to harass somebody based on race, sex, gender identification, sexual orientation , or even the stereotypical jocks vs geeks/nerds situation. Now it is possible for some of the regulations to go overboard and need correction, however the recent tendency of the Right to excuse such behaviour under the First Amendment makes a mockery the Founding Fathers intent.
Finally, Smiley, Berkely 1968 has been over for a while. Today's colleges are primarily institutions to learn a profession or trade, in face increasing so with a large numbers of older people going back to school and hardly "'Institutions of Propaganda & Brainwashing." We'll be waiting for you here in the 21st century if you ever get here. The trouble with bombastic statements like that is that even a whole lot of basically conservative people know better than that now.
"genuine harassment"
Why does that make me think of legitimate rape? :right:
Anyway, this report is horrible. Couldn't they just have made a PDF file available? I can't be bothered to suffer through this interface.
This represents a nearly 17-point decline in red light schools from six years ago (PDF), when policies at 75% of schools seriously restricted student speech.
So from the report's point of view the situation has actually improved. So much for the disappearing freedoms spin.
Couldn't they just have made a PDF file available?
Because more people would read it closely and find serious flaws in the methodology? Anyway, I wasn't surprised to see psuedo-conservatives nodding like bobble-headed dolls on various forums including RT itself that their freedoms supposedly are disappearing. That's a problem with today's "conservative" movement, too quick to claim their freedoms are disappearing without checking the facts. Again, 30 seconds and Google could save them a whole lot of embarrassment.
All societies have some rules about behaviour, often coupled to religion or custom. Even when dealing with members of one's own culture we sometimes struggle to avoid offence and conflicts but even more so if we live in a multicultural society.
In some countries, blasphemy is illegal, in others not. In the latter case, laws against blasphemy are substituted by laws against "hateful speech" or "incitement". But those laws merely transpose the underlying dilemma because such terms as "hateful speech" or "incitement" are themselves culture-driven, and vary, even from person to person, let alone between, say, different religions or countries.
We can avoid all these "problems" by avoiding communication with everyone, but that's not a viable solution so we have invented this concept of Free Speech and hope the problem will go away.
So are there limits? How do we recognise them?
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
What if it's the court itself limiting free speech? Where will you take their arse?
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
What if it's the court itself limiting free speech? Where will you take their arse?
Outside for a whipping, of course. :P
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
What if it's the court itself limiting free speech? Where will you take their arse?
Outside for a whipping, of course. :P
And if an ass woopin' don't get the message across, then as a last resort there's always (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/messwifme.gif) armed insurrection to permanently eradicate their tyrannical asses.
I recognize no limit to free speech.
If my gov't tries to limit free speech, I'll take their arses to court, post-haste.
Well certainly. The thing is, you're more likely to find censorship from private organisations (even though the above examples of censorship from universities are still very poor.) This will take the form of your letters to the editor being "edited" , statement to the press taken out of context, certain words and discussions being prohibited in the workplace, etc.
I don't understand this thread, blasphemy in Portuguese means an expression against what is sacred.
Joining together blasphemy and free speech doesn't make any sense.
Neither subsequent posts do.
......blasphemy in Portuguese means an expression against what is sacred. Joining together blasphemy and free speech doesn't make any sense.
Really ......
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAcoiWE0.jpg&hash=54ad17b3a99cb54d3684bcf60b2ba724" rel="cached" data-hash="54ad17b3a99cb54d3684bcf60b2ba724" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/AcoiWE0.jpg)
................................... Nothing is sacred.
If I curse something or someone I consider holy or sacred, I will have blasphemed,
If I curse something or someone that another person considers holy or sacred, I will have needlessly and childishly been offensive.
I don't see where the concept of free speech comes into it either way.
If I curse something or someone I consider holy or sacred, I will have blasphemed,
If I curse something or someone that another person considers holy or sacred, I will have needlessly and childishly been offensive.
I don't see where the concept of free speech comes into it either way.
Your blasphemous spoken word either way is speech.
The subject matter being considered holy/sacred or not by anyone is totally irrelevant, except to those that consider it holy/sacred.
Being able to speak the words you choose, irregardless of the connotations or consequences, is your exercise of the freedom of speech.
The speech itself needn't be friendly, popular, or reverent in any way, manner, or form.
The level of offensive speech that can be tolerated by the listeners can usually determine how much they respect freedom in general.
The less tolerant, the more closed -- less free -- the society.
If you're still confused read the Original Post, & maybe the poster can enlighten you as to why he coupled both.
Let's talk about poops, dicks and urine?[abbr=:idea:](https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0GhBTd3.png&hash=9a42a8627821f733ba92209bb201a708" rel="cached" data-hash="9a42a8627821f733ba92209bb201a708" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/0GhBTd3.png)[/abbr]
Are you having breakfast? It's your problem.
Being able to speak the words you choose, irregardless of the connotations or consequences, is your exercise of the freedom of speech.
Almost that. Opinions are allowed. Lies are not.
Almost that. Opinions are allowed. Lies are not.
Lies are free to be spoken about......politicians do it all the time.
The content of the speech isn't as important as the ability to speak about it is.
If you lie about someone, they can take you to court, where you might be found guilty, by a jury of your peers, of libel, defamation, or slander.
While not protected speech, nevertheless you are free to speak it.
You still had the freedom of speech to say what you did in the first place, just that sometimes there are consequences.
Will those consequences keep you from repeating your slander, defamation, or libel?
If it does --- you & only you --- curtailed your own right to the freedom of speech, not any government, not any person or institution.
If the consequences don't bother you, then by all means you have the right to express yourself in that libelous & slanderous way again, but be fore-warned you'll probably end up in court again.
So, in the end lies are covered under the freedom of speech --- just not protected.
They might not be acceptable, & they might not be liked, but as long as you are willing to pay the consequences, you are free to speak them.
Hate speech, malicious expression towards a particular group based on their gender, age, race, sexual orientation, etc, is considered constitutional in the United States, reiterating that while the government or courts may not like what is being said, they must support the right of an individual to say it.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) embraced the idea that hate speech is permissible
unless it will lead to
imminent hate violence --- In essence, the speech immediately insights others to violently break the law.
Other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech), like Brittian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_Kingdom) & Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Denmark) for example, don't embrace the Freedom of Speech in this regard as vigorously as America does.
So in the end, it depends on where you live, how
"free" you actually are --- especially when it comes to your right to free speech.
Really ......
(photo)
That's why such laws are made in the first place, of course. I'm sure you knew that, but that was further clarification for Belfrager.
...hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence...
It is not right. Because this way it depends absolutely on the offended.
The offended must have a right either to smash or sue, not both or neither.
I'm sure you knew that, but that was further clarification for Belfrager.
No clarification at all for me, Sanguinemoon.
tt92 said it all.
If I curse something or someone I consider holy or sacred, I will have blasphemed,
If I curse something or someone that another person considers holy or sacred, I will have needlessly and childishly been offensive.
I don't see where the concept of free speech comes into it either way.
It's hard to believe that blasphemy laws still exist in the modern Western world, but they do. See below for the overturn of Michigan's law.
But the court notes that this law had already been overturned by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2002, so it cannot be grounds for arrest in this case. After he was sued, the police officer offered two additional grounds for the arrest, one of which was an actual blasphemy law still on the books in Michigan. That law said:
CURSING AND SWEARING–Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
You'll note that Allah isn't mentioned.
Nor Budda, Odin and other guys.
CURSING AND SWEARING–Any person who has arrived at the age of discretion, who shall profanely curse or damn or swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
So, no saying Yahweh or Yeshua. Everything else goes. :)
PS What about "I swear by almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Testifying in a court of law can be a misdemeanor! :D
[/Josh]
...hate speech is permissible unless it will lead to imminent hate violence...
It is not right. Because this way it depends absolutely on the offended.
The offended must have a right either to smash or sue, not both or neither.
Well..........As I said earlier & if you read what I wrote carefully.......these are facts about the Freedom of Speech in America.
You ( or many others that live where their laws differ ) don't need to agree with them,
but they are the legal facts
---- [glow=black,2,300]IN AMERICA [/glow]---- [/i]nevertheless.
Many in America will side with your opinion, but in the end the law is the law, & merely disagreeing with it doesn't & won't change it.
All they can do it petition the government to amend it, & until amended as prescribed in law, that law will remain as fact.
No clarification at all for me, Sanguinemoon.
Freedom of speech walks hand in hand with that of free thought and the exchange of ideas.
What about "I swear by almighty God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Testifying in a court of law can be a misdemeanor!
Observing a court proceeding can be very interesting. Decades ago I took some students to observe a court case and found it most enjoyable...nothing like those little snippets we can find on TV, although they can be very entertaining.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/mountain-man-arrested-in-courtroom-gets.html (http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/mountain-man-arrested-in-courtroom-gets.html)
“Speech Codes” On The Campus And Problems Of Free Speech
Not my words, but the words of another author ( Nat Hentoff ).
There seems to be a movement particularly by the academic left, of all places,
to put strong limits on
some free thought & expression --- free speech.
Here's an opening excerpt from a piece I will link to below that outlines the issue in detail, of which I would like to hear from any of you after reading the entire report ---- especially from,
but not limited to, those with either
any personal first hand experience on campus related to this subject, or have had a teaching position at any level of academia.
On this voyage of initially reverse expectations-with liberals fiercely advocating
censorship of “offensive” speech and conservatives merrily taking the moral high ground
as champions of free expression—the most dismaying moment of revelation took place at
Stanford.
In the course of a two-year debate on whether Stanford, like many other
universities, should have a speech code punishing language that might wound minorities,
women, and gays, a letter appeared in the Stanford Daily. Signed by the African-
American Law Students Association, the Asian-American Law Student Association, and
the Jewish Law Students Association, the letter called for a harsh code. It reflected the
letter and the spirit of an earlier declaration by Canetta Ivy, a black leader of student
government at Stanford during the period of the grand debate. “We don’t put as many
restrictions on freedom of speech,” she said, “as we should.”......... continued
What do you think about what he (the author) says?
Have you seen this anywhere else ---- say for example, in the Government or Main-Stream Media?
Just wanted to note that William Howie Wallace blasphemed in another thread describing grits as "Yeuch". :P
Don't know William Howie Wallace but he is spot on.
RJ is congratulated with his hundred! :beer:
I note your congratulations.
From a Tsarist.
Don't know William Howie Wallace but he is spot on.
The old lad goes about this forum making outrageous claims such as, "I invented the question mark!" and then proceeds to accuse chestnuts of being lazy.
He was an imperialist at one time, but got caught up in Salmond's bollocks and henceforth became an ardent supporter of Scottish Independence.
He also has been known to don an Orange sash and strut about in N. Ireland.
He also has been known to don an Orange sash and strut about in N. Ireland.
He then should have a realistic expectation that he'd be shot at, & if not sternly cry that they were badly trained, & all bad shots!
He also has been known to don an Orange sash and strut about in N. Ireland.
He then should have a realistic expectation that he'd be shot at, & if not sternly cry that they were badly trained, & all bad shots!
Projected jimmie-rustling rating: 10/10. :cheers:
Oh you don't need to "strut" around Northern Ireland so kind of shows the youthful intelligence of a passing gnat. One can wear it in Scotland, England, Wales, Ulster, Eire (yep), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Togo, USA and some isolated places.
Oh you don't need to "strut" around Northern Ireland so kind of shows the youthful intelligence of a passing gnat. One can wear it in Scotland, England, Wales, Ulster, Eire (yep), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Togo, USA and some isolated places.
Glad to see I was right on the other 90% of my previous post. :happy:
You are rarely overly "right." Just the over confidence of youth and that you have to try and boost your confidence by your language emphasises that one. However I will concede a point. When it comes to strutting you lot over the pond have the world championship secured in that activity! :doh:
One can wear it in Scotland, England, Wales, Ulster, Eire (yep), Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ghana, Togo, USA and some isolated places.
Or, if you like being laughed at, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. It would me much more foolish to wear one of these.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Frapgenius%2F20100623043206_yamaka.jpg&hash=8e5f9dadf220dd87be4560e47e7d704c" rel="cached" data-hash="8e5f9dadf220dd87be4560e47e7d704c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/20100623043206_yamaka.jpg)
You are rarely overly "right." Just the over confidence of youth and that you have to try and boost your confidence by your language emphasises that one. However I will concede a point. When it comes to strutting you lot over the pond have the world championship secured in that activity! :doh:
And once again, we learned if from the best; our former imperial owners.
/Study UK's methods for 100 years
/Watch the British Empire fall at the end of WWII
/Take over the world from the UK using UK's methods
Result? Profit. :spock:
No you didn't take over using the same methods so don;t try that guff as an excuse for your type of dangerous imperialism. We looked after a set empire whilst your lot think they have a right to control all the world by invading, corrupting and destabilising. The same coorprate mind behind that does the same inside America hence the tens of millions in difficulty, losing homes and worse. What a typical load of old guff from a young mind but there again brainwashed from the first classroom. Hand on chest and flag everywhere except the lavatory. If it wasn't so warped would be a hoot!
No you didn't take over using the same methods so don;t try that guff as an excuse for your type of dangerous imperialism. We looked after a set empire whilst your lot think they have a right to control all the world by invading, corrupting and destabilising. The same coorprate mind behind that does the same inside America hence the tens of millions in difficulty, losing homes and worse. What a typical load of old guff from a young mind but there again brainwashed from the first classroom. Hand on chest and flag everywhere except the lavatory. If it wasn't so warped would be a hoot!
While you may post your bollock as nauseum, you know I am right. But, thou art an almighty hypocrite, so I expect your post. :P
Nah. You are a most appropriate example of the ex-colonists educational system (not surprised successive governments over there have been concerned). As for the immediate use of the word hypocrite. That really is 'awesome' (a favourite word of Americans! It comes from a nation that blasts the world with stuff about freedom, rights, democracy, principles but doesn't practice any of them itself. Neither across the world nor internally You come from a reasonably cumfy background so free with the assertions No other country in our age has created so many wars, infiltrated countries, maintaned fascist dictatorships than your wonderful land. The arrogance is part of the psyche and well indoctrinated so three out of three for doing a great job of portraying that!
So when immediately jumping up and quickly using a routine word such as 'hypocrisy' do make sure that your would-be high ground is unassailable. Maybe your educational new pal from Michigan could give you a few tips on laguage control which seems beyond your capability.However it is always a smiling thing to be aware that those that accuse others of something always fail to see it in their own corner. Hypocrisy, arrogance and such can be freely stuck on the US of A by virtue of it's global actions. On the wider aspect of free speech I do recall the widespread violence shown to Wall Street protestors and did your land no credit at all. The only laf decent politician over there is Ron Paul and he was hemmed in by the dictatorship of the 2 controlling giants and they in turn by the corporates. Yep land of free speech and rights. Maybe it needs all those spy agencies to ensure the people are in the frame wanted and bleat about rights to fool them!
Do keep up your stance it says much more than you actually realise!! :lol: :whistle:
Nah. You are a most appropriate example of the ex-colonists educational system (not surprised successive governments over there have been concerned). As for the immediate use of the word hypocrite. That really is 'awesome' (a favourite word of Americans! It comes from a nation that blasts the world with stuff about freedom, rights, democracy, principles but doesn't practice any of them itself. Neither across the world nor internally You come from a reasonably cumfy background so free with the assertions No other country in our age has created so many wars, infiltrated countries, maintaned fascist dictatorships than your wonderful land. The arrogance is part of the psyche and well indoctrinated so three out of three for doing a great job of portraying that!
So when immediately jumping up and quickly using a routine word such as 'hypocrisy' do make sure that your would-be high ground is unassailable. Maybe your educational new pal from Michigan could give you a few tips on laguage control which seems beyond your capability.However it is always a smiling thing to be aware that those that accuse others of something always fail to see it in their own corner. Hypocrisy, arrogance and such can be freely stuck on the US of A by virtue of it's global actions. On the wider aspect of free speech I do recall the widespread violence shown to Wall Street protestors and did your land no credit at all. The only laf decent politician over there is Ron Paul and he was hemmed in by the dictatorship of the 2 controlling giants and they in turn by the corporates. Yep land of free speech and rights. Maybe it needs all those spy agencies to ensure the people are in the frame wanted and bleat about rights to fool them!
Do keep up your stance it says much more than you actually realise!! :lol: :whistle:
Remind me again how much Her Majesty's Gov't paid the Kenyans for the Mau Mau massacre?
Along with other massacres by your formerly blood-thirsty gov't?
That's right Mr. Howie, thou art an almighty hypocrite. :nervous:
Desperation, desperation. All that coming from a country that showered South Vietnam with Agent Orange and generations ever since there are born with defects, Even families of US servicemen who served have had the same problem. You messed that war up because you thought you were so high and mighty and sweep everything before you. The Soth Koreand and Austr and Australian Army were both the tops at pacification programmes whilst your oot made a hash of them.At least the VC was wary of those two but not you bunch!It eventually effected moral, discipline and all those in uniform doped out of their heads. We live in a more sophisticated age yet America has waged more wars than anyone. There is hardly a country in South America where you didn't fund a coup and indirectly support mass murder. Hundreds of military posts over the planet with the excuse you are looking after US interest and security. Heavens above! Sovereignty is just a glib word from you lot. When are you going to move your torture camp out of Cuba and respect it's borders? Men still there imprisoned without trial for 12 years?! Justice, rights and human dignity there? You fly in the face os those words all the time.
Now your President is in Saudi Arabia smiling and chortling with th despot there. No rights, freedoms, etc and the country flies in the face of those words you so proudly boast of. Saudi is in the top 10 military purchasers from where do I ask?! Fifty years ago the US couldn't have cared a damn about Saudi Arabia but how oil and making money is more important. You bleat about standing for freedom and all that stuff but shut a blind eye when making a dollar is the aim. You have no moral case so drift back into history of a past time as a sidestep from the danger you have created everywhere. And if so keen on hsitory just look inside the 'kand of the free and home of the brave' (yawn). What a history of ethnic cleansing racial abuse, denying rights, nit-picking that constitution thing when it suited and so on. Stand back boy and think before you waffle o. The Commonwealth is still here but you can only keep friends by bribing them or putting in despots you can control and in with the corprates to make cash.
Do feel free to grow up in your own time of course. Hypocrisy is an alternative word for modern and past America.