Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:
Name me a dictatorship with freedom of speech.

Absolute freedom of speech? Probably none.

But the US doesn't have absolute freedom of speech, now does it?

Frazzled wrote:
I'd posit the founding fathers (ok the rich white guys in the various state assemblies who pushed the Bill of Rights) would disagree with you strongly.

They probably would, but they would be wrong.

Its also worth noting that when the Bill of Rights was drawn up it only applied to the federal government, the states could oppress speech all they wanted.

Frazzled wrote:
Name me a dictatorship with freedom of speech.

Why? Whether or not dictatorships have freedom of speech has no bearing on whether or not prohibiting certain types of speech is a slippery slope. In general, dictatorships that actively prohibit the freedom of speech became dictatorships first, and prohibited speech second. There aren't many (if any) examples of stable democracies sliding slowly into tyranny. Those few that do exist were generally created whole cloth from the ashes of dictatorships, and the slide generally wasn't all that slow or much of a slide. More like "Well, I'm in power now, and I'm not leaving."

Which, really, was the point of my comment. Freedom of speech exists because no one is willing, or able, to take it away; where willingness and ability have virtually nothing to do what is written on a silly little piece of paper.

Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?

Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?

Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?

Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.

Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran


You haven't named a dictatorship with relatively free speech.

Frazzled wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Sophistry. Don't deal in absolutes then. What dictatorship has Western European levels of free speech?

Why does that matter? You're arguing that having anything less than a US standard of freedom of speech leads to a dictatorship. You'd have to show where a stable democratic country has devolved into a dictatorship because restrictions on speech were introduced.

Weimar republic.
Not because of free speech
Argentina
Not because of free speech
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Stable democracy? Please.
Iran
Not becuase of free speech.

Try harder.

You haven't named a dictatorship with relatively free speech.

The point isn't that dictatorships have free speech, it's that the nation first comes under the rule of a dictatorship, then free speech is revoked to keep said dictator in power. Read dogma's post.

They go hand in hand. You still haven't given me some examples. man up!

Frazzled wrote:They go hand in hand. You still haven't given me some examples. man up!

You're ignoring everything I'm saying Frazz. I'm not saying that there are dictatorships which have freedom of speech (to criticise the government at least), I'm saying that the restrictions on free speech come after the dictatorship has established itself.

And why are dictatorships afraid of free speech?

Still waiting on those examples, or are you just admitting you can't come up with some.

Frazzled wrote:
Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran

None of those are examples of the slow erosion of freedom.

In the case of Weimar the state effectively collapsed and was superseded by a new government that basically stripped away many freedoms immediately.

In Argentina Peron took power, and decided he was going to socialize the state. He was able to do this because he had generated massive political support for himself. Unfortunately, as is generally the case in South America, this lead to his removal by the military, and a resulting dictatorship.

If Russia was a functioning democracy before, then it still is. Not much has changed since the 90's.

Iran was a revolution that, interestingly enough, ended in the ascension of a more democratic, but more repressive, state. All of this, of course, after we helped overthrow a democratically elected PM.

KingCracker wrote:So you can say "X party sucks! Down with X party!!!"
But you cannot say "So and so Sucks! He needs to feth off!" Youll get arrested?


Im not getting it. And Im still waiting for a rebuttal on my example of Saddam Hussein era Iraq. Pretty sure 90% of that country didnt share his views. But its ok, those people were just tortured and murdered for going against the laws of their country

And we here in the UK don't do torture or murder. That's what we send prisoners to you guys in the US for

You could say "So and so sucks! He needs to feth off!"

You couldn't say "So and so is a fething N*****r and should be strung up from a tree, YEE-HAW!"

We do have free speech. We just hold people accountable for what they say. Responsibility and all that.

Freedom of speech is a sticky subject on one hand total freedom of speech leads to donkey-caves like westboro baptist church getting away with spreading a message of pure hate and evil.

On the other hand its a slippery slope when you start to impose limits on what peeps can say.

As someone who is not likely to go out of his way to spread a message of hate the regulations of Britain would not affect me in the slightest so zero feths would be given.

Jubear wrote:Freedom of speech is a sticky subject on one hand total freedom of speech leads to donkey-caves like westboro baptist church getting away with spreading a message of pure hate and evil.

In the case of a group like Westboro Baptist Church, does it really count as "spreading" a message when basically everyone hates them and nobody listens to them or thinks their ideas have merit?

Personally, I think that is one of the strengths of allowing speech like that of WBC. That is, when they put their hateful message on display without worry of legal consequences, everyone can really see it for what it is, and realize how moronic they are. If they were not allowed to publicly demonstrate or speak their admittedly hateful opinions, many people might not realize how horrible a group they actually are, and they could potentially begin to gain public support that they would otherwise never have by portraying themselves as martyrs facing criminal charges for their religious beliefs.

I like it as it is now. They can "spread" their message as much as they want and it doesn't do dick for their cause.

Frazzled wrote:And why are dictatorships afraid of free speech?

Still waiting on those examples, or are you just admitting you can't come up with some.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They go hand in hand. You still haven't given me some examples. man up!

You're ignoring everything I'm saying Frazz. I'm not saying that there are dictatorships which have freedom of speech (to criticise the government at least), I'm saying that the restrictions on free speech come after the dictatorship has established itself.

It's almost like you're not actually reading my posts.

Freedom of speech is a great theory, but its not practiced anywhere.

anywhere in Europe its illegal to deny the holocaust. In the states racial slurs are a hate crime. Then in the states, they slipped in the patriot act, Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.

Freedom of speech had a great run, just don't speak out against your governments. I'd miss you guys

Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.

So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.

So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?

Its wrong for everyone. no one should be held and tortured indefinitely without trial. the point is freedom of speech is an illusion.

So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.


Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.

I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.

sebster wrote:So Fraz's thing where he pretends I can't know about American politics because I don't live there... I guess that he's given up on that, because he sure does like to tell the British how they're doing it wrong.


Meanwhile, in the UK you aren't allowed to say racial slurs in a public forum. In the US you can't say rude words on television, or have pictures of boobs.

I don't really agree with either restriction, but the idea of the two countries claiming that the above proves they've got more freedom is just stupid.

Yes, but in the US if you do say rude words on television, or show pictures of boobs, you can't be imprisoned. I'm not really trying to argue who's got more freedom, but that is a key difference.

Frazzled wrote:Weimar republic.
Argentina
Russia (thanks a lot Putin)
Iran

None of those describe a country where a decline in democracy was preceded by a decline in free speech. You don't get to just make things up.



Meanwhile, there are actually troublesome 'racially offensive' clauses inroduced in Australia, that actually threaten to limit political discussion on an important subject - Aboriginal rights. That is, mentioning that a lot of the leaders of various Aboriginal groups have very little Aboriginal blood can and has been found by the courts to be racially offensive, resulting in a hefty fine. Which means addressing other issues, like the high rates of joblessness and high rates of crime among Aboriginal groups becomes a very dodgy proposition.

This limit on free speach is a serious thing, because it limits debate on an important issue. Trying to trump it up into something that leads to dictatorship is just crude, lazy and ultimately empty rhetoric.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hordini wrote:Yes, but in the US if you do say rude words on television, or show pictures of boobs, you can't be imprisoned. I'm not really trying to argue who's got more freedom, but that is a key difference.

True, but the penalty is enough that people won't do it (or even if they want to, the corporation broadcasting their content won't let them), resulting in speach that would otherwise happen being prevented.

And that's not the only example, the US is far more supportive of non-disclosure clauses in employee contracts, meaning that an employee who learns his company is doing something really dodgy is much more limited in speaking out for the public good.

The point is that ultimately free speach is a complex matter, and different countries are going to balance competing interests in different ways. Making declarations about who is more free, or how some other country's decision to openly limit a specific form of speach will inevitably lead to the collapse of democracy is just nonsense.

The only place I can think of where a dictatorship had happened when civil liberties were suspended was Germany.

Following his appointment as chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler began laying the foundations of the Nazi state.

The Reichstag Fire Decree on February 28, 1933, permitted the suspension of basic civil rights--rights that had been guaranteed by the democratic Weimar Constitution. The Third Reich became a police state in which Germans enjoyed no guaranteed basic rights and the SS, the elite guard of the Nazi state, wielded increasing authority through its control over the police. Political opponents, especially those in the Communist Party of Germany and the Social Democratic Party of Germany, along with Jews, were subject to intimidation, persecution, and discriminatory legislation.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005204

It was was because of the Reichstag fire that Hitler was able to seize civil liberties and plunge the country in a police state. If the fire didn't happen people wouldn't have given up there civil liberties, (at least not that quickly) and without people giving up there civil liberties a police state wouldn't have taken hold so easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Meanwhile, there are actually troublesome 'racially offensive' clauses inroduced in Australia, that actually threaten to limit political discussion on an important subject - Aboriginal rights. That is, mentioning that a lot of the leaders of various Aboriginal groups have very little Aboriginal blood can and has been found by the courts to be racially offensive, resulting in a hefty fine. Which means addressing other issues, like the high rates of joblessness and high rates of crime among Aboriginal groups becomes a very dodgy proposition.

Aboriginals they're like the Australian "Native Americans". I hope you guys find a better solution than we did on how to treat them. Because I don't hear so much for crime, but joblessness and medical problem like diabetes is ramped in the Tribes.

broodstar wrote:The only place I can think of where a dictatorship had happened when civil liberties were suspended was Germany.

There are many more. The point is that it wasn't the gradual erosion of liberty that led to dictatorship, but the sudden deprivation of liberties backed by a mass of well organized support.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.

So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?

NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.

broodstar wrote:
NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.

Subtitle D wrote:Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

From here

broodstar wrote:Aboriginals they're like the Australian "Native Americans". I hope you guys find a better solution than we did on how to treat them. Because I don't hear so much for crime, but joblessness and medical problem like diabetes is ramped in the Tribes.

In a lot of ways the treatment of Native Americans looks pretty good compared to what's happened to the Aboriginals. Not to say that what happened to the Native Americans wasn't bad, but just to say how much of a clusterfeth the situation with aboriginals has been, and still is today.

dogma wrote:

Subtitle D wrote:Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

From here

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain
a person in military custody under this section does not extend
to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis
of conduct taking place within the United States, except to
the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

there it is in sec.1022 but that's enough. I withdraw my statement.

That must have been restored after this conversation.




Grats to Senator Levin

but, what you are showing me is from the GPO, so it must be the final draft of the bill.

There is two different types of "Freedoms of Speech". The American one, where racial sler can be said all whilly nilly, And then there's the rest of the worlds Freedom of Speech, where you can still say what you want, but silly things such as Neo Nazi's wondering around screaming "HEIL HITLER" are not put up with and people who say things like this deserve to be shot. Which in some cases they are.

Plain and simple

A Town Called Malus wrote:
And we here in the UK don't do torture or murder.

You could say "So and so sucks! He needs to feth off!"

You couldn't say "So and so is a fething N*****r and should be strung up from a tree, YEE-HAW!"

We do have free speech. We just hold people accountable for what they say. Responsibility and all that.

First off we Americans say YEE-HAW? Secondly you are telling me you have never mouthed off to someone and had them know it is just plain BS with no weight at all?

Poppabear wrote:\silly things such as Neo Nazi's wondering around screaming "HEIL HITLER" are not put up with and people who say things like this deserve to be shot. Which in some cases they are.

So, "Freedom of Speech" is "Freedom of Death"? Wow!!!! (sings) And I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Johnny-Crass wrote:
First off we Americans say YEE-HAW?

I've made a noise similar to YEE-HAW, but I live in the south, and I was drunk.

broodstar wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Then Obama signed a bill to allow indefinite detention of Americans, and grants him permission to kill Americans without trial.

So you're only upset because now Americans are being treated like everyone else?

NDAA 1031 was written to farther the our of police and military agencies to to conduct anti-terrorism operations within the US to capture us citizens connected to terrorist activity. The thing that scares people about that bill is the detained without charges and it doesn't define what activity would trigger this, so people are wondering if they vote for a certain candidate, belong to a political organization or philosophy, etc will they be placed on this list.

I would have said not but the example of McArthyism in the 1950s could be taken to argue otherwise. It was illegal to be a communist and people even suspected of it were hounded out of their jobs.

McArthyism was defeated by the social and political structure that existed at the time, though.

t just shows that even in the US you can have remarkable restrictions on free speech and political action being created and then defeated within the same society.

Things are often more complex than we think.