On 20-12-2010 21:08, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> On 20-12-2010 20:33, Warp wrote:
>>> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>   wrote:
>>>> Basing an opinion on this case and
>>>> extending that to the Dutch laws in general is not something that I
>>>> would advise.
>>>
>>>     I think Condell uses strong rhetoric sometimes to express his views.
>
>> might be, but that sort of implies that his audience knows what he is
>> referring to. And that implies that someone somewhere did his best to
>> misinform the public and succeeded. That worries me a bit. Remember the
>> Dutch are in general allies of the US. How misinformed are they about
>> their enemies? (assuming this person is from the USA)
>
>    He's British.

interesting

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
>
>>> Similarly to how someone saying "all men are pigs" doesn't necessarily
>>> mean that every single male in existence is literally a jerk, but more
>>> like a more generalized expression of frustration about a certain
>>> phenomenon.
>
>> So what is his frustration with the Dutch criminal courts? I might have
>> missed it by being too close.
>
>    I suppose he sees the whole lawsuit as a travesty against freedom of
> speech.

(So the British are just as bad in understanding what goes on in another 
country. Interesting.)

I think you have to really understand who complained, who prosecutes, 
who is defending on what grounds and in particular what the result of 
the trial is to judge if it is a travesty or not.

The whole issue with freedom of speech is that you are not allowed to 
call 'fire' in a crowded cinema. But where to draw the line. This case 
was centered on finding out if what Wilders said was over the line or 
not. He was consistently trying to provoke violence towards groups of 
people by selective portrayal of individual actions as that of a whole 
group (while trying to keep within the boundaries of what is just not 
racism). He was also trying to anger a lot of Dutch people that happened 
to have immigrant forefathers, apparently hoping that one of them would 
be so angry that he would misbehave. Or so at least is one view on what 
he does.
The case against him was therefore on provoking violence and not on 
freedom of speech, just as Assange's case is on rape and not freedom of 
speech.

Post a reply to this message