posted
It's a sign that the government thinks that by outlawing the vocalization of an idea that they think the idea will go away.
Free speach and the expression of ideas (even idiotic hate-filled ones) lead to open communication of ideas (and in this case, showcased a clergyman's ideas on homosexuality- ideas that many in his own congregation might have never known he had before).
I feel that limiting anyone's right to speak their mind diminishes everyone.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Propaganda and idealistic diatribe that questions the value of human life abuses the right of free speech. We shut down nazi web pages and sites with death threats within our borders, and I agree that �ke Green stepped over the line.
Free speech doesn't mean that you can say anything you like.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh you know what I mean, threatening a policeman or statesman, slandering a person or a group. When it harms others.
Chairman Mao took away the right of expression for anticommunists. The free nations of the west haven't done that to any group, but there are exceptions to the Freedom of Speech.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Well, the issue of exactly where your right to free speech ends, or should end, and someone else's right to well-being begins, or should begin, is, you know, still one of the more aggressive shrubs in the garden of life, and not quite as easily pruned as that.
[ January 12, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Irishman, what planet do you live on? Are you saying verbal abuse and persecution are fantasy concepts?
Yes, I would say putting fear in another person would be considered psychologically harming them. I would even go as far as saying it would be considered a threat.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think it's kind of silly for us non-Swedes to jump in here with our very limited knowledge of this case; and I don't really want to get into the issue of hate crimes and speech and so on, because I don't really have any insights of my own to share, but, all that being said, the idea that governments are responsible for our self-esteem does kind of weigh oddly on my mind.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I asked abouut the Swedish law pertaining to this case because -here- someone could not (thankfully) be arrested for saying a group was immoral or damned or whatever.
In the US, there are certainly limits to free speach- mostly regarding threats, inciting violence or slander of a person (the legal definition of slander being an outright lie told to defame a person. Groups and oreganizations dont apply). This pastor's speach (I'd love to read a transcript if anyone has a link to the case) does not seem to fall inro any of the above categories so his arrest seems heavy-handed and oppressive (to me).
Yet he was arrested. Jailed for speaking his mind.
I'd defend this guy's right to blather on about the "evils of homosexuality" if only because the next government administration might want to extend the curtailing of speach to "protect" the government, private business or....well... anything they choose.
After all, if the people will accept some limits on their freedom to speak their mind...what's a few more?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, you do live in a country where according to this poll, 40% of your population is in favour of limiting civil rights for arab Americans, so I'd be careful about doing the whole "woopee go US freedom!" thing.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's all rooted in the difference in attitude between those who believe in negative fredom (classical liberal/New Right idea that people should be free from government restrictions) and positive freedom (modern liberal/social democratic idea that the government should legislate to give equality if opportunity and freedom from persecution/oppression/whatever).
I can't quite believe I managed to remember that much from A level politics...
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Of course, you do live in a country where according to this poll, 40% of your population is in favour of limiting civil rights for arab Americans, so I'd be careful about doing the whole "woopee go US freedom!" thing.
Phht. Polls are made to "prove" the viewpoints of those doing the polling. THey're worthless as they dont really speak for the majority, but only a sampling that that statistically might represent the majority.
The same people could hold a poll showing that 40% of people believe in alien abductions (indeed there is a poll showing exactly that).
It does not change my viewpoint though (and I'm not cheering "GO America"- your country enjoys the same basic freedoms).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I am all for media skepticism, but, uh, statistics, on its own, is sound mathematical practice, not mystical conjuring per se.
I mean, sure; lies, damn lies, etc. All true, but you seem to be suggesting that one should distrust statistics as statistics, as opposed to the various flawed ways they might be gathered.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I'm suggesting that many of these polls are slanted in such a way as to further the agenda/opinion of those doing the polling nad are in no way objective.
For instance, if they polled the same cross-section of americans during the daytime weekday and during the daytime weekend, the results would vary wildly (as one may represent the unemployed more than the other).
There's far too many variables to say that a sampling represents a country of millions....unless they polled hundreds of thousands of people from all age, race, economic and geographic niches- and I really dont think this poll did that, do you?).
If such polling is accurate, how can there be polls showing that almost 70% of americans oppose the Patriot Act (I've seen Moveon.org polls showing that one (surely slanted to their own viewpoint).?
The polls cant be really used as accurate unless all those doing the polling are asking thir questions of the same number of people, from the same diversity.
A poll in rural georgia will, of course, yield a far diffrent result than one done in downtown San Fransisco.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
"...unless they polled hundreds of thousands of people from all age, race, economic and geographic niches..."
Not that I pretend to understand it, but I've been led to believe that, beyond a certain point, too many respondents will make the poll less accurate.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
