BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 23 Oct 05 - 05:23 AM

Good job I didn't mention the dirty knife

http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/episode03.htm#5

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:35 PM

Not wearing seatbelts, or using mobile phones, hardly equates with violent abuse, threat, and intimidation of ethnic, religious, or political groups, does it?

Why is it that you, who are so insistent on others discussing YOUR issues, will never give a straight answer to a straight question?

It is, as you say, not rocket science. A simple yes or no will do.

Is it your contention that it is in the wider public interest that the intimidation of sections of the public should pass not only unpunished, but unhindered by the legal authorities?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:07 AM

It is largely a matter of practicalities. Would it be acceptable to say that if all of our current legislaton was always enforced to the letter - that the attempt would be laughably futile and counter-productive?

It is hardly rocket science. But if any of it is to be effective in practice - the enforcement of legislation must always make choices.

The rest of us attempt to live in an ideal wourld (or cloud cuckoo-land) and can sit in judgement upon those choices but it would be foolish for us to pretend that in the real world these choices do not have to be made.

If you can't enforce all the current legislation to the letter - does it really make much sense to demand and continue make even more legislation that you will also be unable to enforce? For that is generally what is happening to answer public concerns.

The compulsory wearing of seat-belts would be impossible to enforce if most of us did not think it a good thing to comply with. The compulsory banning of mobiles phones whilst driving is also impossible to enforce but we do not seem to think this is a good thing to comply with. Perhaps an increase in the penalties (for those who are not even warned in the first place) would help? Or perhaps it wouldn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Oct 05 - 05:23 AM

It never ceases to amaze me, Roger, how you manage to produce a masterpiece of circumlocution which boils down, on examination, to saying nothing at all.

The only sentence that has any bearing on the subject was the last in your post.

I had already said that it was existing law that was being broken, and needed to be enforced. I did not advocate new law, as that is not germane to the issue.

Your response did not address any of the points I raised.

Is it your contention that it is in the wider public interest that the intimidation of sections of the public should pass not only unpunished, but unhindered by the legal authorities?

If so, you are a part of the problem IMO.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 02:28 PM

"what about yelling 'movie' in a crowded firehouse?"

I will try that soon and let you know how it works out. (Best laugh I've had in a few weeks.) Thanks, petr.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST,Guest A
Date: 21 Oct 05 - 11:07 AM

I am a fervent advocate of free speech - as long as I have the choice of listening or walking away from it.

But....as in the case given by Kat concerning Matthew Shepards' service, that was an infringement on the rights of those attending as well as a major distraction. Sick is probably a more apt word.

I truely believe that that type of demostration should either be prohibited or allow it at a distance of no less than five thousand feet from the site of the demonstrators discontent.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:29 PM

what about yelling 'movie' in a crowded firehouse?

actually the issue of free speech is simple, either you have it or you dont. Its not just free speech for views you agree with..

I think the incitement to hatred law in Canada is a good one to counter the extremists..

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:08 PM

There are many and increasing laws. Most are well-intentioned but in practice and for many reasons - some are difficult if not impossible to enforce. And in certain circumstances attempts to enforce the letter of the law - would not only be futile they would be positively dangerous.

It could be argued that more laws just create more criminals. That does not seem to stop more and more being created. The well-intentioned judgement that 'there ought be a law against it' does not mean that such a law is helpful.

And the chances are that there may already be a law against it.............

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:49 PM

Nazis are not filthy. Most are very clean and compassionate to their own. Hitler even kissed babies for photo ops.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushbab00.jpg

A true Nazi has evolved with great respectability. Those who still tout swastikas are merely an impoverished throw back.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:25 PM

Let me see if I understand your point Roger. You seem to be saying that it would not be helpful for police to act when they see the law being broken.

Is it then your contention that they should stand by inactive, and allow thugs to threaten and intimidate ethnic, religious, or political groups unchecked?

At what point should they act? When the first brick smashes the window of a house? When the first house is set afire? Or maybe when the first family are dragged into the street and beaten to a pulp?

At what point WOULD you consider action to be helpful, and helpful to whom?

"To protect and Serve" is, I believe, the expressed ethos of the police force, and this translates to Prevention of crime, prosecution of criminals, and punishment of the guilty in that order of importance. Just how would you equate that with a policy of inaction in the face of transgression?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 01:55 PM

"You can't say that".

But you just did. So did I.

Prosecutions when aspects are seen to broken the law - may be lawful and justified. But they are not really very helpful in dealing with the problem and may actually confuse and make these situations worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 12:26 PM

The most un American thing you can say - "You can't say that"

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:43 AM

Beardedbruce ... obviously we know that. What is at issue (in my post) is when does 'hate speech' (specifically) fuel such violence .... I don't know of and I'm not delivering a solution ... example is when did the speeches in the seedy beer joints of Germany in the 1920's spill over to political rallys by the 1930's which at that time fueled the violence towards races of people ... I'm not sorry to all those about using the Nazi's as an example, but take is as point taken, look at the speeches in Rwanda, the speeches of Islamic fantics in Afghanistan, speeces of Rev. Ian Paisly in Ulster or whatever ... but that's what's at issue/debate here.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:34 AM

Amos, At what point did I suggest legislating against free speech? That was certainly not my intention, and as far as I can see, on re-reading my post, I merely pointed out that the existing law had clearly been broken.

Given that fact, an immediate response by police should have been mandatory.

BB, you are absolutely right. I may have referred to repubs or Bushites in the past, but I don't think so, and I would tend to take issue with those who do.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:29 AM

sIx

"such violence as Oklahoma City, the sniper executions of specific pro-life doctors, and ones as simple as the defamation of Jewish cemetaries."

THOSE are actions that are prohibited already. THEY should be prosecuted, not the speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:27 AM

Very good Amos ... I agree. The problem is, a lone wolf who speaks hate, is much less threatening than a 'pack of wolves' whose speech is centered around it's ideology and agenda of hate. There is a fine line at this stage when the 'hate speech' turns into violence fueled by the hate.... which we then arrive at your comment " The issue is, instead, one of defining the impact of speech in public as a social act." ... This is were we do not and justifiably ignore the speech ... we must not forget, it's these speeches that trigger such violence as Oklahoma City, the sniper executions of specific pro-life doctors, and ones as simple as the defamation of Jewish cemetaries.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 11:04 AM

Thank you, Amos. A point to remember is that ANY speech can be hateful to SOMEONE.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Amos
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:43 AM

DonT:

The ACLU defended the free-speech rights of the detested American Nazi party (the right to march in Skokie) over this exact issue.

It is NOT the freedom to speak, write, or otherwise express thoughts that is in question. You cannot start down that slope just because some ideas are abhorrent to you, because someday, a lot of politivcal power just might end up in the hands of someone who thinks your own ideas are unacceptable. That way leads despotism and tyranny, even with the best of intentions.

The issue is, instead, one of defining the impact of speech in public as a social act. "Just ignore them" is a pretty lame solution if your creed and race are being defamed publically. Another solution is to identify the speaker and sue him for defamation of character or slander, which is already illegal and actionable. But you cannot chastise him for speaking. Legislating against "hate speech" is a tricky proposition, because it is not clearly definable. If I say the current Administration is a buncha bums and should be thrown out, is that hate speech? What if I insert a racial minority or religious group in place of "the current Administration"?

This is a very dicey area to tinker with, in terms of long-term losses to the best of America's core postulates of liberty.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 09:22 AM

"Nobody should have to put up with pejorative descriptors applied to his ethnic, religious, or political grouping by rabid bigots.

I detest George Bush because he is a lying, cheating, criminal who is destroying the good name and credibility, as well as the internal economy, of one of the world's former great bastions of democracy. NOT because he is a republican."




So, the next time I am falsely called a Bushite, I expect all sorts of comments against the one making the pejorative remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:32 AM

Cut and pasters creepin' back in

Politics only posters on the cat

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:29 AM

So I can expect an active defense when conservatives such as myself are "vilified, insulted and frightened 9or threatened)" here on Mudcat?

You may expect and be entitled to such a defence - but you would currently be very unlikely to receive this on our forum - whatever your political views.

You are more likely to read some personal judgement and read a request from some fellow poster for some anonymous fellow poster to imposed editing actions upon your contribution. Mainly because it was not to their taste but excused and cloaked in respectable sounding reasons like: It was cut and pasted - was not musical - was not clear - was in the wrong place - was attempting to hi-jack the thread - etc. etc. etc...............

The rather unrealistic idea that posters have some right to judge or can exert some control over what others choose to post on our forum - is a practice that now seems to be encouraged.......

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 10:24 PM

"IMHO, if the price of freedom of speech is that sections of the population fear to leave the safety of their homes, it is too high a price to pay.

Nobody should have to put up with pejorative descriptors applied to his ethnic, religious, or political grouping by rabid bigots."

You got it Don T. ... amen to that!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 09:05 PM

You get frightened on Mudcat? Blimey...

Of course personal attacks are never a helpful way of carrying on a discussion, and people who go in for that kind of stuff are abusing free speech. (Rhetoric about politicians doesn't really count as personal, though it's normally a certain way of missing the real roots of the trouble.)

But thugs parading down your street is slightly different from some twit on the other side of the world making rude remarks.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 08:13 PM

Reading through this thread I see some very peculiar opinions, and some fairly sloppy reasoning.

The right to free speech is not really the issue here. What really matters is the use we make of that right.

If a faction march into an area populated by people they dislike and create an atmosphere of threat and intimidation by spewing hate and abuse, they are abusing that right. In most civilised societies they are also committing an indictable offence.

It is not enough to say they should be ignored. The residents have the right to be protected from threat, by law enforcement agencies, and should not have to hide indoors until the bigots decide to leave.

It is not a defence to say they were exercising their rights to free expression if it can be shown that, in the process, they were breaking the law. They should be dispersed by police, or arrested and charged.

IMHO, if the price of freedom of speech is that sections of the population fear to leave the safety of their homes, it is too high a price to pay.

Nobody should have to put up with pejorative descriptors applied to his ethnic, religious, or political grouping by rabid bigots.

I detest George Bush because he is a lying, cheating, criminal who is destroying the good name and credibility, as well as the internal economy, of one of the world's former great bastions of democracy. NOT because he is a republican.

I detest our own leader (Tony Blair) for exactly the same reasons, NOT because he is (nominally) Labour/socialist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 06:22 PM

McGrath,

So I can expect an active defense when conservatives such as myself are "vilified, insulted and frightened 9or threatened)" here on Mudcat?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 04:55 PM

When "other peoples behaviour" consists of marching through a neighbourhood as a way of intimidating the people who live there, and putting them in their place as inferiors - whether as blacks, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, whatever - than there is nothing wrong in feeling entitled to try to change that behaviour.

There is no absolute right to vilify, insult and frighten people, even when that is limited to speech and gesture.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Grab
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 04:42 PM

Bruce, if an anti-abortion (I don't believe the phrase "pro-life" is correct) movement pickets an abortion clinic, calling for all people who work there and go there for abortions to be beaten up or subjected to discrimination, then yes, that anti-abortion movement is as bad as any neo-Nazi group. Similarly any pro-abortion group who pickets a Roman Catholic church and calls for Catholics to be beaten up or subjected to discrimination is as bad as any neo-Nazi group.

In the pro/anti-abortion movements though, the former do exist. I've yet to hear about the latter taking place (except in conflicts between religions, when abortion isn't the issue at hand).

I will live with the line you draw, if and only if it doesn't conflict with my and other people's rights to have differing opinions about how *they* live their lives. I will not live with the line you draw if it attempts to regulate *my* or other people's opinions on living life.

I have no problems with anyone having different views from mine, on a spectrum from Genghiz Khan (or Maggie Thatcher :-) through to Karl Marx. They can do what they want themselves. I don't even mind them trying to convince other people that they're right, so long as I'm also allowed to convince other people that they're wrong if I think they are. But when their message is "I'm right, and other people must change their behaviour because of that", they can get right out of my face, thanks.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:55 PM

LOL, Ebbie!

I need to make a correction, I listed pro-choicers as minorities and, last time i knew, we were not. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:20 PM

Wouldn't it be enough to just have 'Free Speech Zones'? Comparable to the Washington DC designated area when a demonstration is held?

(Absolutely TIC)

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 06:05 AM

Why is that most attempts to limit our freedom of expression are supported or overlooked by many - at least initially - for reasons like the trains running on time and the streets being clean?

Almost as if there was some trade-off between order and the freedom of expression.

Is it not possible to have both?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:49 AM

One thing that I don't think has been made clear: people of colour cannot change their skin tone in order to mask their race. All other minorities, gays, lesbians, pro-choicers, etc. can, to some extent, hide who they are when they feel the need, which is way to often, imo. When hate-filled speech is spewed in a person's neighbourhood and it contains white supremacy rhetoric, it takes an incredible amount of courage, a thick skin, and strong self-assuredness to just ignore it, esp. if one is a person of colour. A much better alternative was illustrated by the town of Billings, Montana, noted below.

I worked with the Wyoming Grassroots Project, for years, to get enhanced penalties for hate crimes passed in Wyoming. We learned that those who were hate-filled did have a right to express themselves, but they did NOT have a right to turn that hate into violence against others. It is a very fine line.

We worked under the umbrella of the former Northwest Coalition Against Malicious Harassment, a group founded in Coeur d'Alene in 1987 by the late Bill Wassmuth and others to combat the Aryan Nations and other hate groups.

One of the best and most positive things I learned from all of it was the way a community responds to hate speech and crimes is very important. Please visit this page to find out how Billings, Montana responded when hate came to their town: Not in our town. There are also links, on the left, to subsequent videos, etc. of other towns who banded together to counteract hatred and violence. They are all quite inspiring and very relevant to today, imo.

There are some good quotes and other info of shorter length about it on this page, which also includes a video clip of Not in our Town.

Ultimately, it has to begin at home, when children are little...the parents are the first line of defense in making sure children grow up in a positive atmosphere of safety, diversity, and community. To do that, we need to continually work at educating all peoples on the inherent value of all human beings and help them to release their incredible fear for that is what gives birth to the hatred and violence.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:34 AM

The truth is that many, very probably most of us, if we had been living in 1930s Germany, would probably ahve been good little Nazis.

An observation if true - that would not make most of us bad people.

It may well make us good people who did not do enough to avoid an approaching situation - at a time when perhaps they have had some opportunity to?

And before it was too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:48 PM

How do you ask a Jewish person to "just ignore" speech which is deliberately meant to threaten his welfare, even his life, and that of his loved ones?

Hell, I get lambasted with speech intended to threaten my welfare and that of my loved ones everytime I turn the damn TV on.

Fortunately I have a mute button.

This is a somewhat rhetorical question which I don't have time to respond to now, but perhaps I will later.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:25 PM

Thanks, all, for the comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:22 PM

Yes Frogprince, a good thread...If it's got us thinking about our own ideologies.
As usual McGrath gets right to the crux of the question.

Little Hawk is a Starry Starry eyed idealist...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 05:19 PM

Well said frogprince .... let's let this one go as it is... too many emotions simmering and as you mentioned all has been very well presented.

It was a damned good thread!

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:48 PM

At the risk of drift: We have very different views here, expressed with real passion, but I really don't think anyone has hit below the belt. And I personally don't think anyone has said anything that is basically stupid, without real merit. I think that makes this, on the whole, a damn good thread.

Should we let this one lie, and decide we've each expressed our side, before the civility breaks down?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:40 PM

sorry- "By the standards of the pro-life folk, pro-choice demonstrators are just as bad as Nazis. So, you feel that there should be no pro-choice demonstrations? And pro-choice consider pro-life to be murderers of pregnant women- better ban pro-life demonstrations, too. "


Akenaton has said "Personally I see supporters of the Iraq war as evil, as the war has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, is now widely accepted as illegal, and the reasons for war changed as events unfolded.
Supporters of the war simply refuse to see the evidence and in so doing bolster up the criminals who started it.
There are a few here on Mudcat who support the war ,but are seen by most as naive or misguided."

I have stated that those who OPPOSED the war, without demanding that Saddam comply with 14 years of resolutions and cease-fire terms were guilty, IMO, of all the blood shed.

So I guess both of us should be prohibited from speaking, as the other feels them to be evil.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:38 PM

The unexamined aspect of the "all Nazis were filth" slogan is that it tends to go along with an assumption that German Nazis were completely different from the rest of us. The truth is that many, very probably most of us, if we had been living in 1930s Germany, would probably ahve been good little Nazis.

I wouldn't in any way have any problem in saying that in this case "scum" would actually be a fair description of us, but we ought to be careful about assuming that just becauise we are lucky enough not to be in that place and time it still isn't a fair description of how we are.

As has been pointed out, "decent people" seem to have little difficulty in going along with the most apppalling crimes, and just shrugging them off. In that respect, if that is true, we are really no different from the Nazis and the slave-owners. And that doesn't mean they weren't so bad after all, quite the reverse.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:31 PM

Grab,

By the standards of the pro-life folk, pro-choice demonstrators are just as bad as Nazis. So, you feel that there should be no pro=life demonstrations? And pro-choice consider pro-life to be murderers of pregnant women- better ban them, too.

Where do YOU draw the line? And will you live with the line I draw?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Grab
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:58 PM

We're confusing two things here.

Were members of the Nazi Party of 39-45 all filth? Not necessarily, because there were other reasons for being a member, not least that you and your family got to stay alive. As with the Communist parties of Eastern Europe, many did it because the alternative was literally fatal. And until pretty late on, many didn't know the fate of the Jews/homosexuals/gypsies who'd been rounded up - the official word (reinforced by newsreel footage) was that they were in work camps.

But are members of neo-Nazi movements today filth? Yes, of course. The only reason to join a neo-Nazi group today is if you believe that non-whites should be subjugated and subjected to violence, or if you're weak-willed and prepared to go along with stronger people who openly believe that, just to stay in a "tribe". Both of those can only qualify that person as filth.

As for that march, well, those neo-Nazis had freedom to their hate speech and freedom to march. They also had freedom to take the consequences of getting the crap kicked out of them. These were *not* peaceful protestors!

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 03:56 PM

Yeah, I guess one should ignore the rhetoric of hate.

Ignore it even if you have Jewish and First Nation blood running through your veins. Ignore the taunts of Jew Boy (come on and fight Jew Boy), ignore the Injun jokes … heavens sakes don't let them ever find that one out.

The Jews of Europe back in the 1930's tried to ignore it … even when their businesses were taken away from them, their homes taken away from them, their possessions taken away from them … ignore it, as they're led away to the Warsaw Ghetto. After a while you think your pretty well forgotten about when they draw up the final plan at Wannsee in 1942.

Ignore the the new settlers to the new land. We'll find another piece of land were we can live, after all there's plenty of it. Ignore it, as your kicked off another piece of land … ignore it as your led off to the reservations. Better not fight back, look what they did to the Sioux.

Don't worry about those thugs marching through your neighborhood. Ignore them, they'll just fade away.

I dunno, guess I'm get kinda emotional, self rightious in my views about hate. I'll just ignore it all, let them say what they will. It'll all go away.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:58 PM

Yep, the rest is applesauce. ;-)

I wish that no one would ever again embrace Nazi policy. I wish that no one would ever again torture people. I wish that no one would ever again launch a war of aggression. I wish a whole lot of things...

Chongo says I'm just a starry-eyed idealist.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: frogprince
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:50 PM

Freedom of speech also includes freedom not to listen to speech
Which is close to the heart of why I struggle with the Skokie decision: should freedom not to listen have to consist in barricading yourself inside your house with heavy ear plugs? How do you ask a Jewish person to "just ignore" speech which is deliberately meant to threaten his welfare, even his life, and that of his loved ones? More power, certainly, to those who can drain away the power of hatemongers by walking by them as if they don't exist; but that is a remarkable thing to ask of anyone in a position such as a Jew confronted with active nazism.

And, all the time, so much of me is saying "Let the filthy motherf**kers have their march; it really may be by far the lesser of the possible evils."

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:50 PM

I begin to see your point, Little Hawk. (I don't begin to agree with it, but then in many ways you have always been the wiser of us.)

Also, let's anot forget that the people posting to this thread are friends first. The rest is just 'apple sauce'.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:37 PM

sIx - If they were marching through my neighborhood, I would ignore them. I think confrontation is exactly what they are looking for, and I see no benefit in giving it to them.

I agree that every Nazi was, to some extent, responsible for what happened in World War II, but the Final Solution (the decision to actually kill millions of Jews and other people) was not arrived at until the Wannsee Conference in January 1942. It would have been a small number of key Nazis who made that decision in committee, in the midst of a country already embroiled in over 2 years of a world war...and fighting desperately on 2 fronts.

It was in Russia that mass killings of Jews began, in 1941, as a sort of unofficial policy carried out by Einsatzgruppen in occupied areas, following the German advance. The Russian campaign was notable for its utter brutality on both sides, and that is where the organized killing of Jewish communities began. It is unclear exactly who ordered it.   (maybe Heinrich Himmler?)

That killing was then sanctioned officially at the high levels of the Nazi hierarchy at the Wannsee Conference in '42, which led to the creation of the infamous concentration camps.

If Rommel was a Nazi (and I think he was, but cannot confirm it at this point) then he would have joined the Nazi Party probably in the early 30's, some time before the war. His rationale for doing so would probably have been, "these are the men who are going to restore the German armed forces and put the country back on its feet, and I want to be on their team". That was certainly the rationale for many thousands of German professional soldiers who became Nazis, and I imagine it ranked way higher in their perception than any opinion they had regarding Jews. That's what happens when a political party starts running a nation. People join it because it is the prevailing order, and the road to professional success (at the time). That doesn't mean they take conscious notice of its every ugly undercurrent of weirdness.

I mean, hell, Stalin's Communist Party was an abomination...but how many ordinary Russians belonged to it? Hundreds of thousands, at least. That's what happens. Had Stalin lost the war to Germany, those people would have been regarded exactly as the Nazis have been regarded.

Stalin killed more of his OWN people in pogroms than Hitler ever managed to kill with the Final Solution.

If you want to look for evil in this World, it ain't hard to find...and the Nazis did not copyright sole claim to it. Yet they seem to have inherited the special title of "Greatest Villains of all Time". I think that's a sort of mental knee-jerk that causes people to stop thinking in a certain way when the word "Nazi" jars their consciousness.

How many of them would have BEEN Nazis had they been living in Germany at the right time? More than a few, I'd bet.

Self-righteousness is saying to yourself: "I would never do that. I would never make that mistake. I am inherently better than those people. They are monsters."

Such thinking leads directly TO things like Naziism, in my opinion. We are all capable of making tremendous errors of judgement in our search for what we term "liberty", "justice" or "security".

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:30 PM

I to agree Amos that Bush is a greedy, lying warmonger ... and I know and accept others that feel the same way ... but when they start having marches in neigbourhoods where Texans live chantin, rantin and ravin that all peeple whose last name is Bush or (yes) all Texans should be excluded from owning their own business, where all Texans should be excluded from having an education, that the only good Texan is a dead Texan and then all Texans should be extermidated like vermin ... well, that is crossing the line of tolerance, that is Hate. Who needs it.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM

Wal, now, sIx, I know a few folks who think George Bush is a despicable hypocrite, a dumkopf, a war-monger, and doesn't have more than three brain cells to rub together. And these folks have expressed to me great wonder that his despicability is not patently obvious to everyone. They feel, and I am somewhat sympathetic to their view, that he should be despised for the wrongs he has done and the lies he has told.

I think it is right and just that they should be able to express these views wherever they feel like doing so.

But, of course, it would be sheer idiocy to extend these opinions to a whole class of people such as Texans, silver-spoon babies, or Republicans, to be sure.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

"If I knew they were marching, I would be inclined to just stay away."
... how could you stay away if they were marching in your neighbourhood ... why would one have to tolerate that?

Also L.H (not trying deliberatly to be difficult here, just trying to get my point across) ... every person who was a member of the Nazi party in Germany at that time was well aware of the agenda of the party ... every card carrying member of the Nazi party is/was responsible for every drop of Jewish, Gypsy, Gay, Communist (.. list goes on) blood spent in the various death camps.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:43 PM

Well, Bruce, I'll say this. I would be quite nervous if such an individual lived next door to me. I kid you not!

If I knew they were marching, I would be inclined to just stay away. I think that's what people should do...not yell at them...not throw stones...not riot...just totally, absolutely ignore them. Give them dead silence as a response. Not even look at them. Act like "Who cares?".

Why give them the satisfaction of being attacked openly? After all, isn't that really what they are looking for, in a sense? I think they must thrive on that sense of martyrdom that comes with being openly hated, attacked, and persecuted. It just proves to them how embattled and noble their cause really is!

On the other hand, it's downright discouraging when most people will not even acknowledge your existence...nor react to your attempts to provoke them.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:35 PM

LH ..... I don't believe Rommel was a member of the Nazi Party ... he was a general officer in the army of the Weirmacht.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:32 PM

I never said anything about "stopping someone for what you think they MIGHT say."

I'm saying zero tolerance for what someone does say ... if the contents of the "speech' incites hate. For the definition of my meaning of 'hate speech' see my post (11:39) above.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:26 PM

Anyone today who can embrace Nazi philosophy is FILTH. Howzat?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:22 PM

Okay, I appreciate everyone's views on this, and I get where you're coming from.

Think about this. Erwin Rommel was a Nazi Party member. He was also a superb commanding officer, and was so respected by the British that it can truly be said they had an affection for him. (they also send commandos to try to assassinate him once...but failed...it was war, and they were trying to eliminate a particularly clever opponent).

Well, I don't get the impression that Mr Rommel ever had his mind on "exterminating an entire race of people". I don't think a lot of soldiers and other people who were technically members of the Nazi Party in the 30's and 40's had their minds on that, nor did a great many of them know that it was happening until very late on (if at all), because their minds were fully occupied with the more immediate concerns of the day...such as...doing their job, fighting at the front, their family...the things that ALL of us are normally concerned with.

How many Republicans are consciously aware of the death squads that the USA has funded to kill people in Latin America (and it happens every day)? How many Republicans were consciously aware of the abuse and killing of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq when it was happening? How many Republicans would have enthusiastically supported such actions, had they been fully aware of the human circumstances and what would happen to people's lives?

Are all Republican Party members "filth" because those things happened (and continue to happen) under the auspices of a Republican administration?

Obviously not.

That is my point.

I regard Nazi philosophy as an utter abberation. That does not change the fact that when a political party is in power of a great nation, that millions of normal people will serve it in an unthinking and basically pretty innocent manner, not knowing that they are supporting a great evil, but believing fervently that they are supporting a great good. It has happened that way before, and it will again.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 01:04 PM

6 - you are comparing apples and oranges. Pointing a gun at someone is different than stopping someone for what you think they MIGHT say.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 12:29 PM

Inciting actions based on hatred shoudn't be allowed. Just attempting to get people to join with you in hating someone should. There's a difference, and it involves a crime of deed vs. one of thought.

Let the Nazis do their thing. There aren't that many people who enjoy hatred that much these days. If people ARE haters, they're usually aimed AT Nazis instead of BY them. My fantasy is that these scary-guy wannabes have a little rally and nobody else gives a shit. One tenacious and desperate reporter shows up just in time to catch a bunch of people wandering off dragging their signs and muttering things such as: "Sheesh - there are like 5 guys in sheets yelling at us about the downfall of America and I think I'm not sure I shut the hall light off. Maybe they can find someone else to yell at." The reporter then pulls out a cigarette and goes up to one Nazi wannabe and asks, "Sir - do you have a match?" The other guy fumbles under the elastic, wondering if anyone else wore a fitted sheet, lights the reporters cigarette, and comments, "I bet you'd like to know why we're here today!" The reporter replies, "No, not really. Thanks for the light," and wanders off, whistling a well-known tune.

Acts (and incitement to commit them) should be illegal, words not. It may just come down to the fact that unless someone can say a thing out loud, no one can argue against it. It may be a cultural difference, I don't know. I simply have never felt threatened by someone hurling words at me - at least not since I was a kid and learned how to ignore taunters. There are so many more reasonable, itelligent, and KIND people who deserve attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:51 AM

Of course it cannot be argued in a court of law .. because there is no law against it. If I was found on the street pointing a gun at someone, and was caught and apprehended by the police, I'm sure there would be some charge against me.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:49 AM

Beardedbruce ... one can certainly disagree with philosophy, or political platform or whatever but if the context of that 'speech' was violent, in nature ... I have no qualms in stifling it.

Amos ... "Freedom of speech also includes freedom not to listen to speech, I suppose." ... I know where you are coming from with that, but if you have ever been the target of such, and ignored it ... but eventually physically bullied .. you might have a different understanding.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:45 AM

Sorry 6, your definition of hate speech is not correct. At the very least it could not be argued in a court of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:41 AM

sIx,

So I can count on your support to stifle all the hate speech about Bush here?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:39 AM

'hate speech' that promotes any discriminatory harassment directed at any specific human or group of humans that has the purpose or reasonably foreseeable effect of creating an offensive, demeaning, intimidating, or hostile environment for that human or group of humans should not be tolerated period … it is verbal bullying, which has the purpose of evolving into physical bullying or much, much worse … this I feel is not a gray area.

The right to bear arms does not legally give one the legal right to point a gun directly at anyone in an offensive manner…. 'hate speech' is not (I feel) dissimilar to that analogy.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:24 AM

True to all, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Amos
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:33 AM

There is no theoretical limit to the freedom of speech per se. But it also true that speech is an action in public, and as such, one has to stand ready to take responsibility for the consequences of that action. The crime of yelling "Fire!" in a theater is not in the exercise of free speech. It would not be a crime, for example, to yell "Troglodyte!" or "Mum's pajamas!" in the same circumstances. It is the consequence of intentional false panic-mongering that will be taken as a legal offense if it has consequences of harm to others. That is why hate-mongering is sometimes a gray issue. If someone preaches hate to me, and I decide to accept their point of view and act on it, then my view is that is my own responsibility -- there is no rule that says you must take on board any communication directed to you. Acting out messages from others that you do not knowingly accept is just as irresponsible, IMHO, as sending them. Freedom of speech also includes freedom not to listen to speech, I suppose. More importantly, the freedom to critically compare realities offered with those you yourself know to be true.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 10:00 AM

Is our forum really the right place to try to debate this issue now?

Yes, I think you may well be first on the list, my friend. It's time for you either to shut up, or to use a name and take responsibility for what you have to say. If you continue to refuse to use a name, you will be come a non-person around here, and every single message you post will be deleted.
Free speech is fine, but you're just a pain in the ass.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:48 AM

"I would rather suffer the offensive speech than the loss of freedom of speech."

Beardedbruce and I so seldom agree on anything that this comes as a new experience to me. I agree with this statement. If the right to march/protest/speak is taken away from the KKK, Nazis, and other hate groups, then it will equally and justifiably be taken away from peace/love groups. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:34 AM

bobad,

You mean, like the union songs that talk about the bosses, and scabs? Or the hymms declaring the superiority of some select group? Or the natiuonalist songs ( of most nations)?

How does one decide what is ACCEPTABLE hate? Isn't that the problem? It seems that to hate GW Bush is ok here. atthe getaway there was a song in parodies that seemed to be over the edge for most of the people there- about Sirhan getting the wrong Kennedy...

My definition is that one should be able to speak whatever one wants- but one's ACTIONS are subject to limitations. It is allowable to say "string up the bastards!" but not to lynch them.

Just look at what liberals here say about Bush- if it was being said about someone they agreed with , it would be classed as hate speech.

I would rather suffer the offensive speech than the loss of freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: bobad
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 09:23 AM

BB

Does your definition of the right to express opinion include the right to incite hatred toward others?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 08:12 AM

So, number 6, you would let me ban Bobert, or CarolC, from presenting viewpoints which I find hateful? You would let those who feel abortion is murder ban speeches those people who would argue for freedom of choice?

I would not: regardless of what a person believes, they have the RIGHT to espress their opinion. This does not mean I agree, or would not argue the point, but to shut someone up for disagreeing with your own viewpoint is more of a hate crime than any words expressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 07:07 AM

Somehow people often seem to read "we're no better than they are" as meaning "they aren't really so bad, and neither are we", which doesn't follow at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 04:11 AM

Is the freedom to express your view in the manner you chose to - a privilege or a right?

Whatever you may think it to be - perhaps you may agree that along with this prililege or right comes a responsibility?

And that anyone who would feel themselves qualified to suppress the privilige or right of another to express themselves - also has a responsibility?

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: alanabit
Date: 18 Oct 05 - 02:31 AM

I think we are mixing up two things here, which are the freedom of speech (which is absolute) and the way it can be exercised, (which is not). We all have the right to make love or to defecate. We do not have the right to do this at times or places which cause enormous offence to other people.
I did not read many supporters writing here in support of the Protestant thugs, who wanted to march through Catholic areas of Northern Ireland, hurling abuse (and often worse) at the residents. The object was not to exercise freedom of speech (as they claimed) but to cause injury and offence. How are these Nazi thugs any different?
I know of no constitution anywhere, which wishes to take away my right to fart. If, however, I choose to exercise it loudly in a place of worship, I can expect someone to remove me or to tell me to do it elsewhere.
American Nazis have the right to express their opinions and to walk the streets of their states. They do not necessarily have the right to do both at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: number 6
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 11:44 PM

"There were a great many people in the Nazi Party between 1939 and 1945 who were just as ordinary and normal in their nature as most of us would claim to be."
... cannot agree with this in the least bit L.H., any person that belongs to a political party or organization that promoted the complete extermidation a race of human beings certainly cannot be categorized as 'normal' or 'ordinary' in their nature. Belonging to the Nazi party cannot be confused with belonging to the army of the Weirmacht.

Promoting Hate via speech, literature cannot be tolerated. Period.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: katlaughing
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 11:09 PM

When we had Mathew Shephard's funeral in Casper, WY, Rev. whatshisname from down south somewhere came up with his cadre of followers to yell at us, outside the church. We were called 'fag-lovers' told we'd burn in hell, as would Mathew, etc. etc., ad nauseum. The police handled it very well as they cordoned them off to one area, while the many, many mourners refused to respond to them. Nature helped out. It had been clear blue sky when people started to line up; as the ugly, hate-filled chants started up, clouds rolled in, very quickly, the sky darkened and a silent blanket of soft snow began to fall, dampening not only the ground, but their horrible words as well. Most of the mourners regarded it as a fitting and, perhaps, Godlike response.

I do believe in the right to free speech, but I also support enhanced penalties for hate-crimes. It starts with the words and leads, too often, to violence. It doesn't sound as though there was any real need to let them march through that neighbourhood; too bad they couldn't have contained them in a nearby park or something.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 09:22 PM

Yellin' "Fire!!!" in a crowded movie theater is criminal...

Macrhin' thru a nieghborhood preachin' hatred is stupid...

Big difference...

Oh course, unless the folks in that neighborhood agree???

Then it boils down to a group of intolerant folks... Which is just palin disgustin'...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 08:59 PM

A very complex argument .
I argee with Peace Nazi ideology should be abhorrent to all sensible people and I know Little Hawk would argree with that.

I believe Little Hawks point to be, that although some people may hold bad or evil opinions on some subjects ,that does not make the wholly evil, and I could agree with that .

But frogprince reminds us that history's page is open for us all to read and we must observe and learn as we form our opinions. We are all ultimately responsible for the opinions we hold.

Personally I see supporters of the Iraq war as evil, as the war has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, is now widely accepted as illegal, and the reasons for war changed as events unfolded.
Supporters of the war simply refuse to see the evidence and in so doing bolster up the criminals who started it.
There are a few here on Mudcat who support the war ,but are seen by most as naive or misguided.

The atrocities of the Nazis were horrific, but the water is getting muddier. The UK and USA governments are accused of using torture against "terrorist" suspects, and are attempting to have information obtained by torture made admissible in court.

Do we see our governments as evil for using torture?
We elect those governments, are we all evil because we prefer not to think about the actions of our elected representatives?

Everyone should have a voice , even the evil ones, but we must make sure that the whole world is listening ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: bobad
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:23 PM

" emanating from the tortured minds of a few central figures like Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels, Himmler, and others."

This sounds a little too much as if they were victims (of a "tortured" mind) instead of victimizers.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:05 PM

MANY of the ACLU lawyers who argued on behalf of the American Nazi Party and its right to hold that march were Jewish. First we deny them the right, then we get denied the right.

Sorry, LH. On that we part. Nazis are filth. I will never see them any other way. Sorry, buddy.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 06:53 PM

But, L.Hawk, any modern American has grown up with decades of perspective on the history and legacy of German Nazism. I can't disagree with saying that a modern Nazi has to be a sadly lost soul. But you're talking sickness so profound and malevelent that I have a hard time feeling much differently toward them than toward a rabid dog.
I still struggle with the decision on the Skokie march and similar instances. It is one thing to say that everyone has the right to express their views. But these people are satisfied with nothing less than inflicting major anguish on the victims of their hatred; it was trasnparently obvious that was their primary reason for locating the march where they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 06:34 PM

If an organisation with an agenda of racial or religious hatred plans to parade through a neighbourhood in such a way that people living there will very reasonably feel under threat, they have a perfect right to object to them coming, and to resist it if need be; and the responsible thing for the civil authorities to do may very well be to ban the parade.

Perhaps it may be that in the USA you have given up that right and that duty. Fair enough, and there is a case for taking an absolute position on freedom of speech and movemeent, as a protection against falling intio the opposite error, but it woudln't be reasonable to expect everyone else to fall in line with that.

However from what I have read and seen it appears that the authorities in the USA frequently find it easy enough to restrict freedom of speech and movement in circumstances where there is far less justification for doing so than in this case. For example relatively recently in New York, in the case of protests against the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 06:11 PM

The Nazi Party was founded upon some very, VERY negative psychology, emanating from the tortured minds of a few central figures like Adolf Hitler, Josef Goebbels, Himmler, and others. It capitalized upon people's resentment toward and fear of certain groups...Jews, Communists, anarchists, homosexuals, foreigners, etc. It encouraged and committed atrocities against many people.

To go from that, however, to simply saying "Nazis are filth", Bruce, is a blanket statement I cannot agree with. It's like being a Nazi in 1939 and confidently saying "Jews are filth".

There were a great many people in the Nazi Party between 1939 and 1945 who were just as ordinary and normal in their nature as most of us would claim to be. To recognize that is to rise above fanaticism. It is to rise above unthinking hatred and gut reaction.

I would regard anyone who joined the Nazi Party in modern day America to probably be someone who is feeling isolated, alienated, and afraid...and is looking for security by forming a small, tribal identity with a few other such people. (what is termed "a loser", you might say) That's sad...but it doesn't mean the person is, by definition, evil. It means they are lost in their own fearful illusions.

All people instinctively do what they think will make them happy, and they usually do what they think is right at the time, unless they are too afraid to do what they think is right. Then they just do what they think they MUST do.

And, no, you cannot deny them the right to speak...unless you are in favour of running a dictatorship. What you can deny them the right to do is to break the normal civil laws...as regards property, conduct, physical harm to people, libel, and stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:28 PM

This has nothing to do with being convicted - you can't convict someone of a crime they did not commit. Until they open their mouths, they have every right to speak. Once they open their mouth, they are subject the law just like everyone else.

You can't deny them the right to speak.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Peace
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:26 PM

Beardedbruce is right.

The issue was addressed by the ACLU about 30 years ago over the right of Nazis to march in Skogie (sp?), Illinois. What was true then is true now. Nazis are filth--not a statement with which anyone using their own Mudcat name would disagree. However, muzzle them and pretty soon you too will be muzzled. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: bobad
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 05:00 PM

Most civil societies recognize that freedom of speech is not absolute ie. there are limitations. One often cited is that one does not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded building. In Canada it is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:56 PM

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., of the U.S. Supreme Court, stated his belief in free speech in a number of court decisions. Describing the test of free speech, he said: "If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate."—United States v. Schwimmer, 1928.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:51 PM

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/#annotations

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:49 PM

I'm glad we do not live in the UK!   

We can't draw a line when it comes to speech - unless it is a speech to incite a riot. I would never support the Nazi's, and I would protest vigorously if they tried to march in my neighborhood, but we can't deny anyone the right to speak - we can only work to make sure the opposing voice speaks loud and clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:45 PM

In the UK the Queens peace...or shortly "The peace" is the 'normal' state of society...and any interruption of that peace and good order is considered a "Breech of the peace". This would be an offence!
Do paedophiles have the right to speak? Do murderers have the right to speak? Where do we draw a line?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: BS: Freedom of speech- Unless we disagree
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 04:39 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/17/nazi.march.ap/index.html


I do not now, nor have I ever supported the NSM, but if one does not give them the right to speak, can one ever ask for it, for one's self?