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

On 07/05/2010 6:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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

My pleasure.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a 
government.

Post a reply to this message

On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?

Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)

> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
> government.

But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the 
politicians say. :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 13-5-2010 12:33, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/05/2010 10:08 AM, andrel wrote:
>> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
> 
> Thanks but I don’t know if congratulations are in order. ;-)
> 
>> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a
>> government.
> 
> But the world will stop turning if we don’t have a government, so the 
> politicians say. :-P
> 
Our government fell feb 20th, having a partial government without full 
power since then. Elections will be june 9th. I am not expecting a new 
government before October. As long as you (or germany) provide a 
government, you will turn the earth for us, I guess.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> BTW did we already congratulate you on your new government?
> And on the speed they formed one. Here it often takes months to form a 
> government.

  Wait, this thread was about the British elections?-o

  ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message