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.

Ann Coulter gives me the fear. More from how she looks than anything else. Definition of "crazy eyes".

We've had a few cases like that over here. The American pastor that burned the Quran for example. You can face imprisonment or face a substantial fine for burning the Quran over here but I don't see anybody going to jail over burning Bibles.

Certainly when I was in school we were all giving a copy of the New Testament, I still have mine but many were burned or torn up that day. It shouldn't be illegal and it is purposefully disrespectful, but not everybody and everything has automatic respect.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Ann Coulter gives me the fear. More from how she looks than anything else. Definition of "crazy eyes".

We've had a few cases like that over here. The American pastor that burned the Quran for example. You can face imprisonment or face a substantial fine for burning the Quran over here but I don't see anybody going to jail over burning Bibles.

Certainly when I was in school we were all giving a copy of the New Testament, I still have mine but many were burned or torn up that day. It shouldn't be illegal and it is purposefully disrespectful, but not everybody and everything has automatic respect.

To play Devil's Advocate, the Bible as an object doesn't have nearly the religious value that the Quran does, to their respective religions. Christians see the Bible as a book that tells the word of God. Muslims see the Quran AS the word of god.

Do I think it's right that one should be afforded protections that the other doesn't get? No, but if I stretch, I can see the reasoning for it.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice. Our culture, like ever other culture, has to draw a line at what provides the most pragmatism and workability with the most freedom, and as a whole we've decided that fighting words, fraud, inciting riots, and hate speech should not have protection of law, but rather prohibition.

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

I think I was confused in my earlier post. You're right. I'm not truthfully sure what I was thinking of.

Islamist preachers have gotten away with it for a long time in Britain. It took the better part of a decade to deport and/or extradite Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Hate speech isn't protected by free speech laws.

Why not?

Because a society with wholly unrestricted free speech is totally unworkable both in theory and in practice. Our culture, like ever other culture, has to draw a line at what provides the most pragmatism and workability with the most freedom, and as a whole we've decided that fighting words, fraud, inciting riots, and hate speech should not have protection of law, but rather prohibition.

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

 whembly wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It also makes sense to gently remind others how free speech works... and if they don't like it. GTFO.

i would love to agree with you. But free speech can and sometimes will land you in court, depending on who complains about what they find offensive.

In the UK? Probably...

In the US? Very rare... almost non-existent.

You guys got that one right.

It's actually more common than you'd think, at least as far as civil action goes.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

You are lumping the ultra-orthodox in with right wing Israelis which is completely idiotic.

I am lumping in Ultra-Orthodox Jews with the propaganda spouted by right wing Israelis. Such as the type that insists that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same.
The connection is a blatant use of propaganda, its not idiotic, its demonstrable.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

As for your estimates of what constitutes a reasonable response, most Israelis supported the nation's response to daily rocket and mortar attacks against the civilian population. None of them give a damn about YOUR notion of "reasonable" sitting comfy thousands of miles away from the fighting.

I wasnt sitting thousands of miles from the fighting in Northern Ireland. We know what terorism is like in the UK. We also know that you dont stop it with large scale retaliation.
And its clear that some Israelis give a damn about our notion of reasonable, which is based on reason and humanity, I hope that a growing number will see that madness of the Israeli right for what it is.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

that reads liked you have been brainwashed.
Israel minimise civilian casualties, you must be joking. Israel apparently no idea how to conduct peace keeping operations.
Actually this is not the case Israel does know how to conduct peace keeping operations, but doesn't want to, the political strategy related to the long term removal of Palestinians, not peace with them.
israeli policy is inhumane, but it is not nonsensical.
For your information you don't respond to terrorism with artillery, but with boots on the ground and a low but firm presence. Its expensive, but winnable.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Let's not forget how we got here - your completely absurd assertion that Ultra-Orthodox Jews photoshopping women out of a picture somehow equates to genocide against Palestinians.

Actually that isnt what I wrote at all, and I was very clear to clarify several times when you and PhantomViper went off on one.
I am left with two conclusions.
1. You are not capable of reading the posts because your grasp of logic is too simplistic and cannot handle a chain of information. You cant understand any logical argument unless the starting position directly relates to the conclusion, rather than via intermediate logical stagers, which were provided and explained.
2. You can grasp the information but prefer not to, you would rather grossly misrepresent the argument presented against you because the actual argument is harder to handle than your preferred misrepresentation. Fanatics do this quite a bit.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Your bias borders on hilarious and your understanding of Israeli politics is laughable.

Actually my understanding of Israeli politics, at least with regards to the Palestine question is better described as reasoned, it also has the advantage of distance, rather than a disadvantage. I can afford a more level headed opinion on the matter than those with vested interest, and if you are detecting any factional weighting in my opinions it is entirely due to humanitarian concerns.
Also Israeli policy on the occupied territories is no laughing matter.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Your reply constitutes nothing more than trolling and I'm not going to be dragged into a moronic slugfest with the ignorant.

Bye bye.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Yes, the UN was biased when it agreed with the findings of the Israelis own Kahan Commission that Ariel Sharon was ultimately responsible for the deaths of 1500 to 3500 civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Image is nasty/NWS


Israels hands are far from clean in this matter, and were actually the first side to engage in terrorism against civilians in 1948, when Zionists killed almost 10,000 civilians in a series of terror attacks.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
It's actually more common than you'd think, at least as far as civil action goes.

You don't go to jail from civilian courts. When I say "freedom of speech", I mean generally free from government oppression.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

IIRC if you're prosecuted in the US for "hate speech" you are charged under various rioting and incitement type of laws, not actual speech laws.

Honestly that picture doesn't phase me personally but considering Dakka tries to maintain a family friendly focus I think perhaps spoilering it would be for the best.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Israel has done more than any other nation ever would if faced with a similar threat to minimize civilian casualties. They are morally clean regardless of your opinion or that of the obviously biased UN.

Yes, the UN was biased when it agreed with the findings of the Israelis own Kahan Commission that Ariel Sharon was ultimately responsible for the deaths of 1500 to 3500 civilians at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps.

Spoiler:

Israels hands are far from clean in this matter, and were actually the first side to engage in terrorism against civilians in 1948, when Zionists killed almost 10,000 civilians in a series of terror attacks.

This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs. It's a sad incident, but the aforementioned facts still stand. The UN today is incredibly biased toward Israel. If you don't see it, you're blind. Them's the breaks.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs.

Well, no,, the second example was Zionists against Arabs, but the first one it was the IDF sealing the camps and taking direct action to support the death squads. The level of slaughter achieved would have been impossible without the IDF's support.

On the second issue, the UN isn't biased, the US is. That sort of tilts things there. The UN can condemn Israel until it's blue in the face, but without the US allowing anything to be done about it, all it would be is hot air.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Please show me where hate speech is illegal (oustide of colleges and other bastions of "inclusiveness"). The Nazis can freaking march through Compton is they want.

Canada (2-14 years)
Germany (5 years)
UK (varies according to the offense)
US (but only under certain circumstances)
Numerous others.

Your particular example would actually be a crime in the US. SCOTUS established a legal precedent that includes creating an 'imminent threat test' clause to determine if something is protected by freedom of speech. In the event that it would immediately lead to other violations of the law, (riot, arson, so on) then it's not protected.


Edit": damn, ninja'd

Imminent threat is not hate speech, thats imminent threat. AS to the other coutnries I couldn't give a flying feth all about what they do. I


Automatically Appended Next Post:

here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers may sometimes be prosecuted for tolerating "hate speech" by their employees, if that speech contributes to a broader pattern of harassment resulting in a "hostile or offensive working environment" for other employees.

Yes, it can be interpreted as such, but thats typically only for protected classes. I don't think there's case law where a work place extolling the virtues of hating cats has been found such. AS noted thats also a civil action, not criminal, and only limited to the workplace. Rodney the wiener dog can continue espousing his extremely rational hat of all things feline on the internets free from government attack.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
This happened over 30 years ago, and was committed by Arabs against other Arabs.

Well, no,, the second example was Zionists against Arabs, but the first one it was the IDF sealing the camps and taking direct action to support the death squads. The level of slaughter achieved would have been impossible without the IDF's support.

On the second issue, the UN isn't biased, the US is. That sort of tilts things there. The UN can condemn Israel until it's blue in the face, but without the US allowing anything to be done about it, all it would be is hot air.

You're really bringing up 1948? Almost just as recently the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japanese civilian populations. Wow...grasping at straws much here?

Your figure of 10,000 dead due to Jewish terrorism in 1948 is highly suspect. Source?

 Orlanth wrote:
I wasnt sitting thousands of miles from the fighting in Northern Ireland. We know what terorism is like in the UK. We also know that you dont stop it with large scale retaliation.
And its clear that some Israelis give a damn about our notion of reasonable, which is based on reason and humanity, I hope that a growing number will see that madness of the Israeli right for what it is

I grew up during The Troubles. The tactics used by the IRA and others are not comparable with Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al. The UK by and large was content to ignore a lot of what went on during The Troubles because it was 'over there'. It wasn't until there were attacks in GB that the British government started to get more involved in Northern Ireland with a view to ending the conflict. Also the levels of support that the IRA enjoy compared to Hamas et al are nowhere near close, and the IRA is not running the local government, setting up schools, and providing access to basic services. In addition the UK is not surrounded by countries that are actively hostile to it, refuse to recognize it's existence, and want to see it wiped off the map. Had the UK been subjected to thousands of rocket attacks from Northern Ireland the results would have been very different.



If you want to discuss the situation between Israel and Palestine then another thread may be more suitable than this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/15/pope-islam-paris-charlo-hebdo/21796053/

Pope Francis on Thursday defended freedom of speech but said there are limits and that "you can't make a toy out of the religions of others."

Francis spoke about the Paris attacks while en route to the Philippines. He defended freedom of expression as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good "without offending."

Seventeen victims and three terrorists died in the three-day rampage of violence across France last week. The offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, were attacked.

"You cannot provoke," the pope said. "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

Francis also briefly discussed reports that U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials had warned that he could be a target of Islamist militants.

Francis expressed confidence in Vatican security measures, Canada's CBC News reported. The pope said he was more concerned about others being injured if an attack took place.

"I am in God's hands," he said, then adding lightly: "Am I afraid? You know that I have a defect, a nice dose of being careless. If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain."

The Pope doesn't understand what freedom of expression means either.

You cannot condemn the murder of these journalists and then, add a “but” to that denunciation if you truly believe in the freedom of expresson.

Again... it's another form of appeasement at work here.

sigh...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The UK by and large was content to ignore a lot of what went on during The Troubles because it was 'over there'. It wasn't until there were attacks in GB that the British government started to get more involved in Northern Ireland with a view to ending the conflict.

Thats just simply not true. The only years between 1970 and 1985 where there were not terrorist attacks by Irish Republicans in mainland UK were 1976, 1977 and 1980 . There was then a lull until the 1989 Deal bombing, then there was terrorist attacks every year until 2001 with the exception of 1998. The IRA and IRA splinter groups performed terror attacks on mainland UK on a regular basis throughout the troubles.

 whembly wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/01/15/pope-islam-paris-charlo-hebdo/21796053/

Pope Francis on Thursday defended freedom of speech but said there are limits and that "you can't make a toy out of the religions of others."

Francis spoke about the Paris attacks while en route to the Philippines. He defended freedom of expression as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good "without offending."

Seventeen victims and three terrorists died in the three-day rampage of violence across France last week. The offices of the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had published cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed, were attacked.

"You cannot provoke," the pope said. "You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity."

Francis also briefly discussed reports that U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials had warned that he could be a target of Islamist militants.

Francis expressed confidence in Vatican security measures, Canada's CBC News reported. The pope said he was more concerned about others being injured if an attack took place.

"I am in God's hands," he said, then adding lightly: "Am I afraid? You know that I have a defect, a nice dose of being careless. If anything should happen to me, I have told the Lord, I ask you only to give me the grace that it doesn't hurt because I am not courageous when confronted with pain."

The Pope doesn't understand what freedom of expression means either.

You cannot condemn the murder of these journalists and then, add a “but” to that denunciation if you truly believe in the freedom of expresson.

Again... it's another form of appeasement at work here.

sigh...

You can do it this way.
You shouldn't do something but if you do, you should not be held liable by the government nor lets say killed. Others do not have to interact with you or do business with you, but you should be subject to no more phyiscal danger than a thorough tongue lashing in response.

^Yup... that's right dude.

Also... I think I now I have man crush on Bobby Jindal now... check he speech in London... soon? (going to crosspost the content of that speech in my Post Midterm thread as it's more appropriate.)

 whembly wrote:

The Pope doesn't understand what freedom of expression means either.

You cannot condemn the murder of these journalists and then, add a “but” to that denunciation if you truly believe in the freedom of expresson.

Again... it's another form of appeasement at work here.

sigh...

I refer everyone to Benjen Stark.

What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Bigot much?

 Frazzled wrote:

Baxx wrote:
What the pope says is simply not true. You can insult any religion. Why he says so is obvious, he's on the same side of the islamists when it comes to demanding respect from others.

There is no dignity left for those religions and for decades if not centuries there's been an ever increasing blast of blasphemous fire against religions and their founders. They got too much blood on their hands to claim dignity now. That's ben gone for over a thousand years now.

Bigot much?

Who, the Pope?

BAXX.

this is what he said:

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

I don't know about the other nonsense BAXX typed, other than it revealed some issues.

 Frazzled wrote:
BAXX.

this is what he said:

His pretend punch aside, Francis by no means said the violent attack on Charlie Hebdo was justified. Quite the opposite: He said such horrific violence in God's name couldn't be justified and was an "aberration." But he said a reaction of some sort was to be expected.

I don't know about the other nonsense BAXX typed, other than it revealed some issues.

Yeah, notice the "but" in that sentence? When people vehemently condemn something they don't usually add conditions to those condemnations.

But it is to be expected, he is the leader of the religion that was probably criticized more often by CH. I doubt that he wished any harm to anyone over it and no one can really criticize him for taking a stance against something that he deems to be disrespectful of his entire belief system.

To be fair, if someone tells you they will kill you for publishing a picture they don't like, and has previously fire bombed your office for doing so, when you decide to continue publishing the pictures in question you are accepting risk. It is clearly your right to accept that risk, but to deny you are would be silly.

The folks at Charlie Hebdo acknowledged that risk and accepted it. And guess what? The risk did indeed manifest itself.