 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 12:07 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldot com> wrote:
>> And what makes "free speech zone" an oxymoron?
>
> Free speech is the notion that you have the right to express your opinion
> without restrictions, wherever you want and whenever you want. A "free
> speech zone" in the US is a restriction put to certain protest events.
> The restriction is that the protest must be performed within a well-defined
> zone. Exercising your right to free speech out of that zone is illegal.
> Which kind of makes the whole point of "free speech" quite moot.
>
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>
> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>
OK then.
My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".
As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses
of parliament.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
Yes, it's hypocritical to a large extent, along with the "free speech
permits" some places try to enforce.
However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever."
You don't have free speech during a movie in a theater, and you don't get to
stand outside my house with a bull horn shouting that all sinners are going
to hell at all hours of the night, and you don't get to exercise your right
to free speech standing in the middle of the freeway (altho people have done
that too).
The "free" part is the content. You don't get to stand outside my house
with a bull horn telling everyone how nice I am at all hours of the night
either.
It really only became a problem recently because the concept is getting
abused now, because the government currently sucks so bad.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> However, I wouldn't say "free speech is whatever you want to say wherever."
When I said that, I was not referring to the physical act of making sounds
with your mouth. What I meant is that freedom of speech means that you can
express your *opinion*, very especially about things like politics (eg. to
criticize the government), without impediments. It doesn't mean that it
gives you the right to eg. trespass private property: It means that wherever
you are allowed normally to talk and express your opinions, you are allowed
to express *any* opinions, including critique.
The "free speech zone" contradicts this notion because it limits
demonstrations of critical opinions to only certain areas, while in the
rest of public areas you can present any non-critical view you want, even
visible ones (such as waving flags for support/cheering, etc.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It means that wherever
> you are allowed normally to talk and express your opinions, you are allowed
> to express *any* opinions, including critique.
Right. I was clarifying.
> The "free speech zone" contradicts this notion because it limits
> demonstrations of critical opinions to only certain areas, while in the
> rest of public areas you can present any non-critical view you want, even
> visible ones (such as waving flags for support/cheering, etc.)
Yes. Again, it was originally for safety of people, like having a line of
police between two opposing groups of protesters or keeping protesters from
blocking the streets. It was only in the last decade or so that it was used
to actually keep people out of places.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:55:59 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> Play with this and put the 3 main parties at 33.3%
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8609989.stm
Interesting - thanks for that pointer. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/7/2010 8:04 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 3:38 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>>
>> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
>> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
>>
>
> OK then.
> My understanding of the term is that it is a "zone" of "free speech".
>
> As for it being hypocritical I'll leave that up to an American to answer.
>
> BTW in the UK there is no such thing as free speech except in our houses
> of parliament.
>
Its used at some colleges to supposedly, "Allow group of assholes X to
freely express themselves 'safely'.", when in fact having no function
other than to prevent anyone presenting apposing views at the venue. The
theory being that if you, I don't know.. think Obama is a Nazi and hate
fags, you can spew gibberish, lies and paranoia today, at your
"sanctioned" zone, but the people presenting the opposite view (or just
a more sane one) have to do it at the other end of campus, can't *cross
the line* and argue with the wackos, and/or have to host their, "No he
isn't, and there is nothing wrong with being gay.", presentation on some
other day.
Instead of an open exchange of ideas, you get the equivalent of lunatics
on soup boxes, being guarded by campus police, to *allow them* to say
any damn thing they like, and actually pointing out they are wrong,
correcting their facts, or worse, merely holding a different opinion,
can get you arrested and/or thrown off the campus. In other words, a
"free speech zone" is a public echo chamber, where the only people
allowed to participate are those willing to accept, or already
believing, the premises presented. Facts, other ideas, or even
discussion of specifics, if it seems like the later might derail their
"speech", is not allowed *ever*.
Its not just hypocritical, its poisonous to community cohesion, the
ability of anyone to find compromises, or anyone to get *any* point
across, to anyone not already predisposed to believe it, whether its a
factual and logical position or complete insanity. You might as well
pick three random sites, say.. conservapedia, wikipedia, and what ever
the "super liberal, altie med, everything that isn't new age is wrong",
version of those are, then claim that the first and last one's choices
to delete anything *not insane*, makes them "free speech zones", and not
signs of mental illness. How do you expect to make policy, reach
conclusions, or actually have an exchange of ideas, when only one side
is *allowed* to say anything? And, the usual gibberish reason for it is
something like, "The hate mongering, neo-nazis, are either a) afraid
they will be physically attacked (unlikely), or b) *did* physically
attack some other group last week (very likely), so its 'safer' to
create a 'zone' in which either the perpetrator, or the victims (which
ever one you imagine them to be), can say what they want, without threat
of violence." The idea that preventing the violence, while *still*
allowing alternate views to be expressed, seems to go way over some
people's heads...
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 7-5-2010 16:38, Warp wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aoldotcom> wrote:
>> My understanding of the phrase is it is a zone of free speech. ?Zone? is
>> the subject and ?free speech? is an adjectival phrase
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
>
> It's not a phrase. It's an actual legal term. And the whole notion is so
> hypocritical that it baffles the mind.
If it is American, I would have assumed that it is a zone where is is
free as in free beer.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>
>> If you want to suppose that race can be determined, then I propose a
>> government wide challenge. Any official, acting, sitting, whatever, who
>> needs to be able to identify a person as being one race or another,
>> should be able to identify, and categorize, from picture peoples of the
>> following decent: Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Taiwanese, Thai,
>> Vietnamese, Maori, Malaysian, Native Austrialian; Indian, Saudi, Iraqi,
>> Egyptian; Nigerian, South Afriacan, Brazilian, Mexican, American,
>> British . . . and so on. Any misses would show that the traits they are
>> making decisions based on are either not indicative of a certain race or
>> it would show they are incapable of applying race as a means of
>> separating the correct people for what ever it is the law allows them to
>> separate people for.
>
> I propose a challenge.
>
> Let's take 50 Arizona police officers, follow them for a day, and see
> how accurately they identify illegal aliens. One side or the other would
> have to STFU about the quality of the officer's profiling methods.
>
> -Shay
We would have to agree to an acceptable success rate. If we could do
that, we could solve a few other problems.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
