 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> >> If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe
> >> with
> >> being free to express our opinions :-)
> >
> > You are being the perfect example of the type of mentality which allows
> > freedom of speech to be limited more and more.
> I think that making derogatory comments about certain people will have got
> you punished far worse than what happens today since a very long time ago.
The problem is that what is considered "derogatory" is being expanded more
and more nowadays with the political correctness religion. This is going so
far that people are suggesting that *official* statistics be censored if
they put certain groups of people in bad light. (In other words, what matters
is not the truth, but political correctness.)
Also nowadays presenting criticism of certain official policies are being
considered "derogatory".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> There is no way in this
> world any police officer would even look twice at me if I told him how bad I
> thought the goverment was.
Actually that might not be the case if you criticize *certain* policies
the government is imposing.
For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
touching a taboo subject.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
> government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
> touching a taboo subject.
But certainly where I'm from, and where I live now, saying such an opinion
would not cause any legal trouble, in fact it is frequently been a subject
discussed in the media here since they completely opened the border between
Germany and the Czech. You are not going to get arrested or fined for
making such comments. Again, maybe Finland is different?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
> > government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
> > touching a taboo subject.
> But certainly where I'm from, and where I live now, saying such an opinion
> would not cause any legal trouble, in fact it is frequently been a subject
> discussed in the media here since they completely opened the border between
> Germany and the Czech. You are not going to get arrested or fined for
> making such comments. Again, maybe Finland is different?
Write enough about the subject, and get known enough, and you may. It has
happened.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Unless you think that someone suggesting
>> all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.
>
> It's harmess unless someone acts on it. It's merely an opinion.
Precisely. And the material that Warp is complaining about is banned
with the pretext that it can cause people to act on it.
--
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Unless you think that someone suggesting
>>> all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.
>> It's harmess unless someone acts on it. It's merely an opinion.
>
> Precisely. And the material that Warp is complaining about is banned
> with the pretext that it can cause people to act on it.
Except it *is* harmless, *until* someone acts on it. It *is* a pretext,
for the most part. When you start having the UN pass resolutions
worldwide that nobody should be allowed to question the accuracy of the
Koran, that's nothing to do with "Let's hang the gays".
Worse, of course, is that it's only the popular things you can't speak
out against. Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans. Hell, we
passed a constitutional amendment specifically to harm gays.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans.
Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden because
a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
churches) and got sued because of that.
(Damn, I don't remember now if he was finally acquitted or convicted.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
>>> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
>>
>> No it's not. It's *words*.
>
> Try telling that to a newspaper editor! They can't go publishing things
> like I suggested without risking being sued or having some fine.
Well, if you lie about someone in a way that damages their reputation,
yes. But that's not we're talking about. Certainly newspaper editors can
(for example)
In theory, you're allowed to say anything that's true. "It's my opinion
that ..." is true, since you've stated it as your opinion. Even if it's
"It's my opinion fascism is good" or "it's my opinion that God hates
you" or "I don't believe the holocaust ever happened." Which is some of
the stuff that (for example) Germany and France don't like to hear.
The problem with suppressing such things is that people wind up not
being able to discuss it in public, and in private people use the
censorship as an argument that they're right.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden because
> a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
> churches) and got sued because of that.
Well, certainly in the USA you can get sued for anything, yes. Since it
seems to be the churches that bash the gays and pagans here, and since
the USA seems to be sliding down into a religious silliness not seen in
quite some time outside the USA, it's safe to pass constitutional
amendments bashing gays here. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
>> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
>
> I'm not refusing to believe it, I just think that in each case there is
> always something more than you are trying to say. There is no way in
> this world any police officer would even look twice at me if I told him
> how bad I thought the goverment was.
Where are you talking about? In the USA, many police would probably
agree. I think you'd find it quite different in China, for example.
> However if I start telling him
> about how I don't believe in the holocaust, or how I want to try and
> convince everyone to become Nazis, or if I start making insulting
> comments about people or groups of people
You're not supposed to get in trouble for any of that stuff in the USA.
Indeed, the police are supposed to (and usually do) protect the nazis
and KKK and such while they're having their parades.
What possible benefit do you get from arresting someone who doesn't
believe in the holocaust? The problem comes when you start arresting
people next for not believing that men are superior and that God exists
and should be obeyed.
>or if I even swear at him while telling him how stupid I think he is,
That will get you arrested for something entirely unrelated to the fact
that you're swearing at the police officer, unless you have an
exceptional police officer.
> There's a difference, and if you're too dumb to realise when you're
> going to cause trouble by expressing your opinion in such a way then
> that's your own stupid fault for getting arrested or whatever. Normal
> people don't have this problem.
It's not "normal" people that the constitution is designed to protect.
"Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
