 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawaz org<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:45:36 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 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.
>
> (Damn, I don't remember now if he was finally acquitted or convicted.)
Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> "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.
Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
Isn't that a bit the same the nazis themselves practiced?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
>
> I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
Criminal charges is when the government tries to put you in jail for
something. A lawsuit is when a private individual tries to get you to
give them money for something.
If you're in a car accident, you might get a lawsuit from the other
person who wants you to pay their medical bills.
If you intentionally try to run someone down, you'll get criminal
charges of attempted murder or some such, and it'll be the government
(and not the person you tried to run down) that will be giving you trouble.
Lawsuits fall into "contract law" and "torts." Contract law comes up
when you break an agreement with some other party. "Torts" are when you
don't have a prior agreement. So "contract law" covers things like (say)
warranties and buying something that never gets delivered and stuff like
that. A "tort" would be someone at the store leaving a broom across the
stairs that you trip over and hurt yourself, or spilling hot McD's
coffee in your lap.
In the USA, there are different legal standards, since the government is
presumed to have so much more money and power than an individual. A
lawsuit between private individuals can't lead to jail time, so whoever
provides a "preponderance of evidence", which is to say a bit more than
50%, wins. For something with jail time, you need "beyond a reasonable
doubt", i.e., no reasonable person could doubt that you're guilty.
And then you have "felony" and "misdemeanor", the first of which is
possible jail time more than a year, the latter of which is jail time
necessarily less than a year. (Like, say, murder verses vandalism.)
I'm not a lawyer, I know virtually nothing about law outside the USA,
and none of this likely applies to you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
