http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6238096.ece
QuoteThe American "shock jock" radio host Michael Savage, who was included on a Home Office list of 16 people banned from entering the country, last night urged his listeners to boycott Britain.
He told his audience that Americans should not travel to Britain or buy British goods, and delivered a personal message to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who made the decision to include him on the list of unwanted foreigners: "Unless you remove my name forthwith, unless you admit you made a mistake, I will bring a major libel suit against you personally and I will win."
Mr Savage opened fire on the Home Secretary on the conservative news website WorldNetDaily , where he said that his message to her and the British people was: "Shame on you. Shame that you've fallen to such a low level."
"It's interesting to me that here I am, a talk show host who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values — borders, language, culture — who is now on a list banned in England.
Har, he's gonna sue for defamation. :lulz: (sorry, I find this all too amusing, even tho it's quite a misstep)
I bet Britain is pissing their pants right now
Oh I doubt it. They're probably all to happy to have us keep our trash to ourselves.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Several old crazy conservatives and white supremacists won't buy their products!
Dear God! What have they unleashed upon themselves
:lulz: Well, I do admit that the conservatards are more Anglophilic than most, srsly.
Quote from: Geronimo on May 07, 2009, 02:43:55 AM
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Several old crazy conservatives and white supremacists won't buy their products!
Dear God! What have they unleashed upon themselves
he has a big audience "third largest" "400 stations" and "up to 10 million listeners" according to his site and articals on the ban from England,
i doubt enough of them would get together and act on his suggestions but his audience isn't small
what happened to the other law suits he was doing? wasn't he suing CAIR and the department of homeland security? now England? i wouldn't mind being a lawyer on his payroll $$$
Quote from: Jenne on May 07, 2009, 02:23:41 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6238096.ece
QuoteThe American "shock jock" radio host Michael Savage, who was included on a Home Office list of 16 people banned from entering the country, last night urged his listeners to boycott Britain.
He told his audience that Americans should not travel to Britain or buy British goods, and delivered a personal message to Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, who made the decision to include him on the list of unwanted foreigners: "Unless you remove my name forthwith, unless you admit you made a mistake, I will bring a major libel suit against you personally and I will win."
Mr Savage opened fire on the Home Secretary on the conservative news website WorldNetDaily , where he said that his message to her and the British people was: "Shame on you. Shame that you've fallen to such a low level."
"It's interesting to me that here I am, a talk show host who does not advocate violence, who advocates patriotic traditional values — borders, language, culture — who is now on a list banned in England.
Har, he's gonna sue for defamation. :lulz: (sorry, I find this all too amusing, even tho it's quite a misstep)
I think this is fucking terrible. A fucking disgrace to common law.
Yeah, not one of the UK's finest moments, surely.
But there was a point made on the show I heard this on (npr--Michael Savage as a guest) that the notion "I may not have to agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right (and for some, DIE for your right) to say it" is more of an American concept. Not necessarily a British one. They started the ball in the right direction, back in the day, but lately we're all turning towards the so-called "safety" of society rather than the freedom to speak/act/live.
Quote from: Jenne on May 07, 2009, 03:44:19 AM
Yeah, not one of the UK's finest moments, surely.
But there was a point made on the show I heard this on (npr--Michael Savage as a guest) that the notion "I may not have to agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right (and for some, DIE for your right) to say it" is more of an American concept. Not necessarily a British one. They started the ball in the right direction, back in the day, but lately we're all turning towards the so-called "safety" of society rather than the freedom to speak/act/live.
The whole idea of freedom of speech, which ORIGINATED in England, is that EVERYONE gets to speak their mind without legal consequence.
Everyone. Not just the "right" people. This is a really bad sign.
(I think there's always been an implication of who is the right people...but then I'm a bit jaded here and there.)
I was...a bit shocked at what was taken for granted in terms of violation of rights to privacy in the UK last Summer. CCTV, mobile metal detectors in malls, ID cards...the whole nine yards. So this actually doesn't surprise me in the latest rounds of "Let's Save the Brits"...but it is rather sad at how obvious it's now become. It's no longer JUST the Muslim Fundamentalists (or insert flavor of the decade here ), but instead the rightwingnuts of Amurrica's finest stock, that are drawing the evil eye of the British Empire.
"First they came for Micheal Savage,
but I didn't speak up
because I wasn't Micheal Savage"
Type of thing?
This see me trolling. They hatin'. Patrolling, they tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty.
\
(http://meaningfuldistractions.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/michael20savage20sunglasses.jpg)
Britain shrugged.
Srsly though, all this closed border's bullshit is pissing me off. I mean, what the fuck? Half the rest of the EU doesn't even have borders, and here we are, hiding behind our little mile of water, making lists.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 07, 2009, 03:51:15 AM
Quote from: Jenne on May 07, 2009, 03:44:19 AM
Yeah, not one of the UK's finest moments, surely.
But there was a point made on the show I heard this on (npr--Michael Savage as a guest) that the notion "I may not have to agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right (and for some, DIE for your right) to say it" is more of an American concept. Not necessarily a British one. They started the ball in the right direction, back in the day, but lately we're all turning towards the so-called "safety" of society rather than the freedom to speak/act/live.
The whole idea of freedom of speech, which ORIGINATED in England, is that EVERYONE gets to speak their mind without legal consequence.
Everyone. Not just the "right" people. This is a really bad sign.
Man England has been going
that way for a long time. American policies are funny. Englands are a joke but no ones laughing.
As far as "freedom of speech" goes, I've always been under the impression that England might have done it first, but they never fully embraced it; a good example being the libel laws.
LOL - I wonder just what the fuck our governizors are saving us from? Like what would happen if this dude came to the uk? The minute he steps off the plane do all the flowers wilt and die or does civil war break out or something?
I've said it before and I'm sticking to my story - freedom of speech is a myth. If I cant stand in the middle of the town screaming "kill all gays/jews/pakis...etc" then I am not free to talk. Shift the goalposts and call it "incitement" or "hate crime" if you like but the bottom line is all I was doing was talking and you stopped me because I "crossed a line".
Freedom of speech has no lines. The minute you draw one you've lost the right to use the word "free"
Now obviously (at least I fucking hope it's obvious to you lot) I don't want to stand in the middle of town and scream the death thing but I have to protect the rights of those who want to, even (maybe especially) if the thought of what they want to say makes me want to physically kill the motherfucker who's saying it. Because it's not about what's acceptable or unacceptable, even to consensus opinion. It's about drawing lines through freedom.
It works like erosion - you chip away a little bit here and there and before you know it freedom of speech is the hollow, meaningless sham of a concept it is today. Yes it's too late for me to pretend speech is free. The best I can hope for is they don't draw any more fucking lines. :argh!:
Quote from: Faust on May 07, 2009, 11:52:59 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 07, 2009, 03:51:15 AM
Quote from: Jenne on May 07, 2009, 03:44:19 AM
Yeah, not one of the UK's finest moments, surely.
But there was a point made on the show I heard this on (npr--Michael Savage as a guest) that the notion "I may not have to agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right (and for some, DIE for your right) to say it" is more of an American concept. Not necessarily a British one. They started the ball in the right direction, back in the day, but lately we're all turning towards the so-called "safety" of society rather than the freedom to speak/act/live.
The whole idea of freedom of speech, which ORIGINATED in England, is that EVERYONE gets to speak their mind without legal consequence.
Everyone. Not just the "right" people. This is a really bad sign.
Man England has been going that way for a long time. American policies are funny. Englands are a joke but no ones laughing.
The impotent (also desperate & shrill) attempt at
manipulation reminds me of this (& y'all know how THAT turned out):
QuoteCotton's central place in the national economy and its international importance led Senator James Henry Hammond of South Carolina to make a famous boast in 1858:
" Without firing a gun, without drawing a sword, should they make war on us, we could bring the whole world to our feet... What would happen if no cotton was furnished for three years?... England would topple headlong and carry the whole civilized world with her save the South. No, you dare not to make war on cotton. No power on the earth dares to make war upon it. Cotton is King. "
Southerners thought their survival depended on the sympathy of Europe to offset the power of the Union. They believed that cotton was so essential to Europe that they would intervene in any civil war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Cotton
Not to say freedom of speech should be fucked with & it is a facade at times.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4mLOL - I wonder just what the fuck our governizors are saving us from? Like what would happen if this dude came to the uk? The minute he steps off the plane do all the flowers wilt and die or does civil war break out or something?
I've said it before and I'm sticking to my story - freedom of speech is a myth. If I cant stand in the middle of the town screaming "kill all gays/jews/pakis...etc" then I am not free to talk. Shift the goalposts and call it "incitement" or "hate crime" if you like but the bottom line is all I was doing was talking and you stopped me because I "crossed a line".
Freedom of speech has no lines. The minute you draw one you've lost the right to use the word "free"
Now obviously (at least I fucking hope it's obvious to you lot) I don't want to stand in the middle of town and scream the death thing but I have to protect the rights of those who want to, even (maybe especially) if the thought of what they want to say makes me want to physically kill the motherfucker who's saying it. Because it's not about what's acceptable or unacceptable, even to consensus opinion. It's about drawing lines through freedom.
It works like erosion - you chip away a little bit here and there and before you know it freedom of speech is the hollow, meaningless sham of a concept it is today. Yes it's too late for me to pretend speech is free. The best I can hope for is they don't draw any more fucking lines. :argh!:
I think you are absolutely right, freedom of speech is a myth.
The trouble is, IMHO, you need to draw lines. If you don't, you say it is perfectly acceptable for, as a friend of mine put it, a pedophile to walk up to a child and explain how much he would like to have sex with them. A ridiculous extreme, perhaps, but absolute freedom of speech- protected by the government- is just as dangerous as any other extreme enforced by the state.
Now. I don't support
these measures, and I agree that politically, you should be able to stand and openly campaign for whatever views you might support- extreme views should always damn themselves, and they should be dragged into public scrutiny so that they can be denounced and shouted down properly. But, importantly, freedom of speech isn't just about open public and political debate. It's about giving other people the right to verbally abuse and attack others in their daily lives.
Like almost everything in politics, it's about striking a balance. We haven't got anything vaguely like freedom of speech in the UK, we lost that with the right to free protest. But going to the other extreme wouldn't help things at all.
I happen to agree with you to an extent. What I've always figured the "free speech" people don't take into consideration is the power of words. The old "Pen is mightier than the sword" thing - that's what that means when you strip away the metaphor of the funniest armed conflict imaginable. Words, when used in the correct order, are one of the most powerful weapons available to man. Other than a brief stint in WW1 the only thing Hitler ever did was made speeches and look at the fucking shitstorm he managed to get going.
It's a real sticky thing. On one hand you want to be able to express yourself in an unrestricted way but, on that same fucking hand, there are a lot of potential Hitlers out there, "charismatic" motherfuckers who, if they were just allowed to excercise their right to free speech, would have a neighboring territory annexed and the ovens fired up in next to no time. Hell, it's already going on. The phrase "Radical Muslim Cleric"
springs immediately to mind. We've already kickbanz0rred a couple of these fucks from our shores and they always whine on about "free speech"
The problem is that every time they draw a line they seem to err on the side of caution. And once the rights are eroded they're pretty much gone for good.
So what do we do?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4mI happen to agree with you to an extent. What I've always figured the "free speech" people don't take into consideration is the power of words. The old "Pen is mightier than the sword" thing - that's what that means when you strip away the metaphor of the funniest armed conflict imaginable. Words, when used in the correct order, are one of the most powerful weapons available to man. Other than a brief stint in WW1 the only thing Hitler ever did was made speeches and look at the fucking shitstorm he managed to get going.
It's a real sticky thing. On one hand you want to be able to express yourself in an unrestricted way but, on that same fucking hand, there are a lot of potential Hitlers out there, "charismatic" motherfuckers who, if they were just allowed to excercise their right to free speech, would have a neighboring territory annexed and the ovens fired up in next to no time. Hell, it's already going on. The phrase "Radical Muslim Cleric"
springs immediately to mind. We've already kickbanz0rred a couple of these fucks from our shores and they always whine on about "free speech"
The problem is that every time they draw a line they seem to err on the side of caution. And once the rights are eroded they're pretty much gone for good.
So what do we do?
It's a tricky question. I'd
like to believe that half the reason the BNP and other similar groups are as pervasive as they are is precisely because they are being crushed like this. The trouble is, crushing free speech does not make these ideas go away. Just stopping people from talking about racism doesn't mean that it stops being a problem, it just means that it is a problem where the people inciting it don't do so in public, so they aren't refuted.
I suppose the flip side to this is, if we as a people are so stupid as to elect the next Hitler, perhaps we deserve to have them. Not that I'll be sticking around in that case, if I can get out.
If the decision were up to me, I'd cut it off at openly calling for crimes. Such as the sexual abuse thing above, murder, so on and so forth. I don't think the government has the right to stop people making fun of religions or making people uncomfortable, though. If someone wanted to stand up and shout about 'killing all them durn immigrants' that's fine, so long as he isn't surprised when he's shouted down in turn. Noisy, but, sound, I think.
In more practical terms, well. What do we do? You only ever lose freedoms if you choose to allow the legislation to stop you exercising them. I plan to go on expressing my views as I have always done. The only major change that recent practices have lead to is that, if I ever decide I do want to protest, I'll need to do it in a very secure mask and with as much padding as I can get together, for when the police brutality kicks in.
Other than that. You could try writing to your MP to protest the abuses. Who knows, they might actually listen or something! :lulz:
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on May 07, 2009, 06:13:56 AM
This see me trolling. They hatin'. Patrolling, they tryin' to catch me ridin' dirty.
\
(http://meaningfuldistractions.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/michael20savage20sunglasses.jpg)
FUCKING WIN.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2009, 12:54:59 PM
Freedom of speech has no lines. The minute you draw one you've lost the right to use the word "free"
I agree with Thurgood Marshall. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't protected speech, it's an overt act...but saying "I FUCKING HATE <enter the group you hate here> is indeed nothing more than speech.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 08, 2009, 03:52:08 AM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2009, 12:54:59 PM
Freedom of speech has no lines. The minute you draw one you've lost the right to use the word "free"
I agree with Thurgood Marshall. Shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater isn't protected speech, it's an overt act...but saying "I FUCKING HATE <enter the group you hate here> is indeed nothing more than speech.
Sooner or later I am going to have to actually try yelling "FIRE" somewhere. I have a suspicion that nobody would actually panic if you just stood up in the middle of the theater and yelled. Maybe if you ran in from somewhere else, though.
While I don't agree with him being banned from coming here (in fact, wasn't this the legislation originally intended for use against "radical Muslim preachers"? And wasn't I called "objectively pro-Bin Laden" for opposing them by the people now crying "Stalin!" Funny how that worked out) I have to admit I am taking a perverse amount of pleasure in Savage's attempted boycott of British products. Apart from HP Sauce, chavtastic rappers, dead foreigners and dodgy financial schemes, I wasn't aware the UK actually produced anything.
I think this is hilarious, to be honest.
His boycott may bring our thriving economy to a halt!
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Okay. But I get to decide what's offensive.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 04:41:48 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Okay. But I get to decide what's offensive.
Of course you do. No one else has the right to tell you what you can be offended by.
(We're not communists)
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:58:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 04:41:48 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Okay. But I get to decide what's offensive.
Of course you do. No one else has the right to tell you what you can be offended by.
(We're not communists)
Well, no, I mean I get to decide which speech voids your right to recourse to the law.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 05:01:28 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:58:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 04:41:48 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Okay. But I get to decide what's offensive.
Of course you do. No one else has the right to tell you what you can be offended by.
(We're not communists)
Well, no, I mean I get to decide which speech voids your right to recourse to the law.
May I suggest using everything I've ever said ever as a starting point? If I said it, it was guaranteed to offend at least one group of sentient beings.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 05:01:28 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:58:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 30, 2011, 04:41:48 AM
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 04:30:37 AM
Fuck the Law, anyone is pretty much free to say what they like anyway. You just need to be a bit careful about who you say it to. Having a Law that protects your right to stand on a busy street, shouting stupid
racist shit, or frothy Godgasmic threats of Hellfire on everyone, is crap anyway. If such people want to shout that stupid offensive hateful shit all day long, then I say go for it. But don't expect any help from the State when four big black lads, drag you off your soapbox, and kerbstomp you. If you take up your right to act like that in public, you are also accepting by default, what the consequences of behaving like this bring. If it gets you a kicking, then next time maybe you won't be so across the board. Because that's the thing. Your right to be as offensive as you like, comes hand in hand with everybody else's right to be as offended as they want. Hopefully, this should get people to take a little more responsibility
for their own actions, and their consequences.
Bump.
Okay. But I get to decide what's offensive.
Of course you do. No one else has the right to tell you what you can be offended by.
(We're not communists)
Well, no, I mean I get to decide which speech voids your right to recourse to the law.
I'm proposing having no Legal interference whatsoever in what people say.
When did a law ever stop you from saying what you wanted anyway. You'd say it where no-one but the person you were talking to would hear it, but that's not such a bad thing. Then if that person was offended, by what you said, should they have the recourse to call the Police and say "Roger just said ***** to me! Come and arrest him!"?
If you answer "no,of course he shouldn't" then by default, there must be a Legal right for you to sit there and offend the very bones of his soul, and there must be legally nothing he is able to do about it. Which means you can call the Police, and say "***** is trying to stop me verbally offending him", can you come and enforce my right to offend this precious little flower" And they will have to come and uphold your right to be offensive to him. Stand over you if need be. Which is equally ridiculous.
Nobody has the right to live every day with the legal knowledge that nobody is allowed to offend them. Under penalty of Law.
But nobody should be empowered by the Law, to walk around being offensive to whosover they choose, in a way that they wouldn't dare, if there weren't armed Police there to uphold his offensiveness. So if the Law were totally to duck out on this one, then people would either have to moderate their stupid mouths, to take other peoples sensitivities into account, or be prepared to defend their speech themselves. If you go into East LA, and start ranting about how niggers should all be rounded up, and put into work camps, then you had better be made of fucking metal. Or kill you. So you wouldn't ever do that, even if it was what you believed. You might say it to your mate, under your breath. Which (depending on who your mate is) is probably not going toget you killed.
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 05:38:42 AM
If you answer "no,of course he shouldn't" then by default, there must be a Legal right for you to sit there and offend the very bones of his soul, and there must be legally nothing he is able to do about it. Which means you can call the Police, and say "***** is trying to stop me verbally offending him", can you come and enforce my right to offend this precious little flower" And they will have to come and uphold your right to be offensive to him. Stand over you if need be. Which is equally ridiculous.
Nobody has the right to live every day with the legal knowledge that nobody is allowed to offend them. Under penalty of Law.
But nobody should be empowered by the Law, to walk around being offensive to whosover they choose, in a way that they wouldn't dare, if there weren't armed Police there to uphold his offensiveness. So if the Law were totally to duck out on this one, then people would either have to moderate their stupid mouths, to take other peoples sensitivities into account, or be prepared to defend their speech themselves. If you go into East LA, and start ranting about how niggers should all be rounded up, and put into work camps, then you had better be made of fucking metal. Or kill you. So you wouldn't ever do that, even if it was what you believed. You might say it to your mate, under your breath. Which (depending on who your mate is) is probably not going toget you killed.
I dont get the point youre trying to make.
People should act as if they didnt have police to protect them?
No offense but if absolutely no one was around to enforce the whole "dont fucking murder each other" rule people wouldnt be worrying about "upholding their offensiveness" theyd be more worried about upholding their fucking property. You would have to "uphold" your speech as well against the very people you are talking about. I have no doubts in my mind that Rush Limbaugh would be the first to organize lynching parties if the kind of anarchy you described breaks out.
Also, if I think that the guy Im talking to has a loaded .44 and absolutely no reserves about killing those who "offend" him Im not going to even go so far as disagreeing with him about ANYTHING.
The kind of free speech you are describing is basically:
"Dont say ANYTHING controversial. Dont say anything that goes against the majority opinion. If you absolutely HAVE to express an opinion on something do it behind closed doors where no one can see."Which kind of misses the point of free speech.
All I'm saying is that we got on more or less intact without Police forces up until about 150 years ago. I think people are tricked into thinking we have to keep upgrading their remit every time someone attempts to do anything to anyone that doesn't involve them overlooking every fucking move, in case anyone gets hurt, or offended, or yes, even killed. How did people resolve stuff they disagreed over, for the 30,000 years we were surviving without Police Forces? What happened? Oh,that's right, people were a little more guarded with the insults,and the hate stuff, because they knew if they overstepped the bounds of acceptable, then they were going to have to deal with the consequences, when the offended party called them on it. Either apologise,or tell them to fuck off. It was their call. There were no Nanny Police around to uphold one, or the other's point. They had to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. They had to be more aware of other peoples views. A bit more careful before they started yelling EAT A DICK, and calling each other Motherfuckers. That kind of thing.
Quote from: BadBeast on January 30, 2011, 06:39:00 AM
All I'm saying is that we got on more or less intact without Police forces up until about 150 years ago. I think people are tricked into thinking we have to keep upgrading their remit every time someone attempts to do anything to anyone that doesn't involve them overlooking every fucking move, in case anyone gets hurt, or offended, or yes, even killed. How did people resolve stuff they disagreed over, for the 30,000 years we were surviving without Police Forces? What happened? Oh,that's right, people were a little more guarded with the insults,and the hate stuff, because they knew if they overstepped the bounds of acceptable, then they were going to have to deal with the consequences, when the offended party called them on it. Either apologise,or tell them to fuck off. It was their call. There were no Nanny Police around to uphold one, or the other's point. They had to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. They had to be more aware of other peoples views. A bit more careful before they started yelling EAT A DICK, and calling each other Motherfuckers. That kind of thing.
They also lynched a lot more niggers 150 years ago. People would have spoken up about it, but they didnt want to "overstep the bounds of the acceptable".
And fostering a culture where only those opinions deemed acceptable by the majority is hardly a way to encourage people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
I bet there are more black men put on Death row now, per year, than were lynched 150 years ago. And that was a particularly American thing, that didn't happen all over. Murder rates were not significantly higher back then. There was probably less crime too. And more interpersonal communication between ordinary individuals, when it came to sorting out disputes. And this illusion that the Law is protecting us from the bad guys, it's ridiculous. We are far more vulnerable to exploitation on a scale unthinkable in our Grandfather'sor Great Grandfather's day.
Look what's happened in the last 5 years. Where did all the money go? Why are we all at War? Who has to pay all that money back? Every financial transaction we make, is getting a cut taken from it, and all the pension schemes gone up in "Hedge Funds", and Market Crashes, All the Legislation we have in place today, and we still get fleeced every step of the way. You say slavery has been abolished? Have a look at your Prison system then! Tell me that this is what you do with your Criminals? The Criminals are all in the Governments now! We lost, and we lost big time by giving the administration and power to these fucking Pirates, bit by bit, over the years. They are the ones we are at risk from. They are the ones who extort us until we are forced to work for fuck all, until we are 65 or 70, then we get to retire on a tiny percentage of what we actually put by for old age,because they have stolen it all, and fucked us over with their "Legislation". In 1914, Europe lost a whole Generation of it's menfolk. So Laws and measures were taken to see that it could never happen again. 20 Years later, what happens? we're at it again. We didn't start those Wars. They did. consolidating their power structure every step of the way, so that in the post war years, no-one would be able to challenge their hold on everything.
And you're worried about your right to "free speech"? Where did free speech get you when the sub-prime lending scam was being carried out right under your noses? Where was free speech when Bush decided to go to War with Iraq? Did anyone listen to you? To what you had to say? Did they fuck! You can have as much free speech as you like, they are never going to listen to you. They will just keep everyone squabbling over who called who a nigger, and who say the wrong prayers, who sing the wrong songs, and while you are fighting to keep your home, or your job, they are filling their pockets with all the money they've stolen. And not only are they thieving bastards, they are making you and me pay back the money they stole from us, to the people who fucking stole it from us!
" Fostering a culture where only those opinions deem acceptable by the majority is hardly a way to encourage people to THINK FOR THEMSELVES" ???????
WAKEY WAKEY!!!. What do you think a Western Democracy is then? Especially a Two Party one, that is so easy to manipulate, and
Keep the population diametrically opposed. Democrats think Republicans are the enemy? Republicans think Democrats are. How long has this been going on for then? Hmmm, . . ? And you still haven't worked it out. You are the grist in the mill. The meat in the mincer. And you still vehemently defend the System that has you bent over a barrell, assprone, while it's balls are slapping against your arsecheeks. Your eyes fixed on a 48 inch plasma screen, while you play WoW on your PS3.
You know I don't mean you personally don't you? And I mean me too when I point out how cold that barrell of Oil is. And our political system isn't much better than yours. Worse in some ways. But that is just the icing on the Cake. we are fucked Royally, as long as we let them keep their grip on our throats. So what are we going to do about? Fuck all. Nothing. Show up at the next Election, vote for the new great white hope, (Dosesn't matter who) SO LONG AS THE ILLUSION OFCONTROL UNDER THEIR LAWS IS MAINTAINED, THEN THEY CAN CARRY ON AS THEY WERE BEFORE. We deserve them. We allow them to do it to us. We are even thanking them. They break our legs, and we say thank you when they offer us crutches! **Spits** . :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :fap:
Are we even arguing about the same thing at this point?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on January 30, 2011, 08:10:51 AM
Are we even arguing about the same thing at this point?
Probably not, I got sidetracked by my Hi performance brayne into ranting, without the "A" word. Wasn't even arguing really. Or was I ? :?
Ah, I see your tactics now, confused would I? :x