As some of you know, more likely than not, I reject most of America's ideals when it comes to living and follow a more European aspect that is much more communal and not so individualistic. Europe favors helping the poor through government rather than through charity, health care is not a problem for anyone regardless of monetary income, people are being educated at higher levels at earlier ages, alcohol and drug laws are much more lax (except for maybe Sweden and Finland when it comes to the drugs), shootings are not really a problem, and there's a more sensible approach to foreign policy with regard to Israel.

 

 

 

Anyway, one of the few areas that I embrace America's ideals over European's is our access to uninhibited free speech, where we are not prosecuted for what we say. Now, I know in Europe that they can speak freely when it comes to newsprint more so than in America (I read a study about it, quite interesting), but what I am talking about is the laws that are coming in that don't allow people to speak against others' religion, race, sex, etc in an open forum. In America, you have the freedom to say whatever you want regarding any group of people, so long as it does not incite immediate violence or widespread panic. For example, you can't scream "FIRE!" in a crowded place if there is no fire.

 

 

 

The specific example regards the recent news about the Dutch government official that will face prosecution for comparing the Qur'an to Mein Kampf. Here is the article for if anyone is interested:

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481665,00.html (I couldn't find any other links to it, despite reading it on CNN and other outlets).

 

 

 

This is where I welcome America's laws with open arms, and reject Europe with how it tries to deal with hate speech and racism. This is why you have a lot of "us vs. them" in Europe when it comes to immigrants. They feel that the immigrants are slowly taking away their own freedoms, and leeching onto society by doing menial jobs that barely help.

 

 

 

Europe, you need to get rid of your bans on hate speech, your bans on Holocaust denial, your bans on racism, your bans on hating anyone that's different. The only sensible way to deal with racism and hatred is to let people speak about it in an open forum so they can be honest with how they truly feel to the public. Keeping these feelings inside only furthers their hatred to be talked in closed company, and it builds. Adding onto it, these types of laws are seen oppressive to them when these "others" came in and changed the laws...this only furthers the rift and causes more hatred and racism. Allow anyone to speak out about things if they want to. Allow people to hold KKK rallies, so long as no one is being harmed. Allow people to hold signs that say, "God Hates [bleep]s" or, "The Holocaust Never Happened". By doing so, not only are people allowed to vocalize their opinions in the open, but they are exposed for the idiots they truly are to the public of the nation. THAT is how you deal with hatred and racism; let their [wagon] be revealed to the general public.

They hold public kkk meetings? Won't a ghetto mob just send their leader to wipe out all of them?

Sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you. Freedom of speech I'm all for, but abusing it to spread hate is disgusting.

 

 

 

Let newspapers print what they want, let us express our own opinions in a humane manner but I'll never agree with allowing people to go into a public area and openly spout crap about people being inferior, people being less for being something they can't decide upon etc etc.

 

 

 

Racism, sectarianism or other forms of discrimination IMO are much better not being spoken within public areas legally, the religious fundamentalists are annoying enough to listen to. Racists and sectarians would just take it to a whole new level.

first off, trying to fault everything about america is no way to start a thread. Second off, there is a difference between fleeting inflammatory comments and hate speech. Hate speech infringes on everyone elses rights, particularly who the speech is directed at. Free Speech is not unlimited, you can say and think what you want up to a point. Without seeing the documentary I couldnt say whether I believe it is hate speech or not, clearly something can be anti islmaic without being hate speech its a matter of the justification for the claims.

Let newspapers print what they want, let us express our own opinions in a humane manner but I'll never agree with allowing people to go into a public area and openly spout crap about people being inferior, people being less for being something they can't decide upon etc etc.

 

 

 

So you don't truly believe in freedom of expression, then? How do you suggest that we deal with the racism that plagues many European countries with regards to the immigrants? In the never ending quest to halt racism, you're preventing any form of rational dialogue about race and religion, when dialogue is how we move forward. Confining it to living rooms allows it to spread under our noses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This man's view of Islam is horribly narrow-minded, and he obviously doesn't take time to analyze it like a real scholar, but his views on allowing criticism of religion are spot on. Why can't we criticize someone's religion if there's something we need to say? I am by no means taking to the defense of this man's comparison of Mein Kampf and the Qur'an, but to penalize him for it in the form of prison is ridiculous. What is this? 1984?

 

 

 

first off, trying to fault everything about america is no way to start a thread.

 

 

 

I thought it was a good way to start the thread so that people understand I'm not some "American-freedom" humping nationalist, that loves everything about America.

 

 

 

Hate speech infringes on everyone elses rights, particularly who the speech is directed at.

 

 

 

How does it infringe on other people's rights? Words are powerful, but they do not infringe on anyone's rights unless they materialize into violent action.

 

 

 

There is too much divisiveness in Europe, and they think their countries and identities are being taken over by immigrants. Not only do they feel this way, but the bloody laws being enacted are making it a reality! Forcing people to be tolerant will not make it so. They can't insult Islam? Why the hell not? I mean, I think the Dutch official that insulted Islam the way that he did is a moronic bigot, and I also think the man in this video that I provided has a horrible understanding of Islam, however, they should have the right to say whatever they want about Islam if they so choose. Are they idiots with narrow minded views of the world around them? Of course, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to be vocal.

 

 

 

Do you think that people should be allowed to display pictures of Muhammad? Moreover, do you think that this cartoonist has the right to publish this cartoon?:

 

 

 

first off, trying to fault everything about america is no way to start a thread. Second off, there is a difference between fleeting inflammatory comments and hate speech. Hate speech infringes on everyone elses rights, particularly who the speech is directed at. Free Speech is not unlimited, you can say and think what you want up to a point. Without seeing the documentary I couldnt say whether I believe it is hate speech or not, clearly something can be anti islmaic without being hate speech its a matter of the justification for the claims.

 

 

 

But how does hate speech infringe on others rights? While I hear this as being the primary justification for the limitations on free speech, I have never heard of any specific examples where say a Neo-Nazi rally or speech somehow caused people's rights to be violated. There is no right to not be offended.

Of course they can display pictures of mohammed, and the cartoonist can display his picture. I believe in open free speech and debate, when I say hate speech my thought is of the kkk using their "rights" to protest and harass blacks while hiding behind the police that have to protect them. Loud hate speech in a public area is harming people's right to live without harassmant.

 

 

 

Let me be clear, saying you think a religion or group of people is harmful or bad is one thing, claiming they need to be killed is another. Freedom of speech debates are always so tricky because there is a line between tolerable and intolerable.

But we've also seen in America where free speech is upheld, and people start agreeing with the hate speeches, and false information gets thrown around. For example, the fact that everybody knows about the KKK is a demonstration that these groups get too big.

 

It only takes a really good speaker to convince everybody else about something which is flat out not true. Eventually, these people will either ignore or attack those who say otherwise, and then you get in real trouble. A lot of people are willing to believe in racism and hating others if they're given a good enough reason.

 

 

 

Free Speech is not some kind of fundamental ideal that is proven to work in every possible case and must not be doubted at any cost. It's something that people should doubt, and with doubt comes refinement.

If you get tired of someone yelling hatred in a public place, you just go yell louder. Worked for me the two times I did it.

 

 

 

I don't get why everyone thinks banning these guys from venting their steam isn't detrimental. If it's pent up, they just muddle things up worse in their heads, and at private meetings with other crazies. That kinda crap doesn't stop hate. Just as you guys talking about hating this hatred. Just as it should be illegal to have anti-gay rights rallies, would that mean it's illegal to have gay rights rallies? I think it's two-pronged, and both sides should be allowed to scream themselves hoarse.

 

 

 

Also, people will find reasons to be harassed over everything. I find harassment inane. I don't really know what inane means. Could someone tell me if that's the right usage? :s

depends on what you define as an anti gay rights rally

 

 

 

if a group is protesting legal gay marriage on whatever grounds it is not the same as protesting out of hatred. Im sure someone could make a decent case against gay marriage based off of the need for the standard family unit, I dont agree with that but its reasonable enough to allow. Thats how things are divided, protesting out of hatred is different then protesting based off of a personal position on an issue(even if it is a little out there).

Let newspapers print what they want, let us express our own opinions in a humane manner but I'll never agree with allowing people to go into a public area and openly spout crap about people being inferior, people being less for being something they can't decide upon etc etc.

 

 

 

So you don't truly believe in freedom of expression, then? How do you suggest that we deal with the racism that plagues many European countries with regards to the immigrants? In the never ending quest to halt racism, you're preventing any form of rational dialogue about race and religion, when dialogue is how we move forward. Confining it to living rooms allows it to spread under our noses.

 

 

 

Through education and reducing illegal immigration, quite often the main cause for much of the racism. I hardly think allowing people going through the streets to say "[bleep]ing paki" or "[bleep] off him Muhammad" will help deal with Islam, and being the age of what seems to be considered a racist group and living in Europe, I can guarantee that would be quite likely to happen. I don't really see how that's the way forward with dealing with the problem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This man's view of Islam is horribly narrow-minded, and he obviously doesn't take time to analyze it like a real scholar, but his views on allowing criticism of religion are spot on. Why can't we criticize someone's religion if there's something we need to say? I am by no means taking to the defense of this man's comparison of Mein Kampf and the Qur'an, but to penalize him for it in the form of prison is ridiculous. What is this? 1984?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes that man is quite ignorant considering he didn't take into account that the Qur'an was written 1400 years ago, when anybody who didn't follow your beliefs and refused to convert was entitled to be killed.

 

 

 

Criticism should allowed but in a debative form. Comments created to cause hate and anger I will never agree with statements like "Muslims are all [bleep]ing towelhead idiots who want to kill us", and if freedom of speech is to allow this then it will only spread hate and anger.

 

 

 

In a perfect world Mage, we'd all use freedom of speech to debate and criticize without spreading hate but unfortunately that isn't the case, instead it will be used for ignorant kids to get away with spreading hate and discriminating against minorities.

But we've also seen in America where free speech is upheld, and people start agreeing with the hate speeches, and false information gets thrown around. For example, the fact that everybody knows about the KKK is a demonstration that these groups get too big.

 

 

 

The KKK, Neo-Nazi groups and other various fringe groups have become much, much smaller in recent times. At one point the KKK was officially affiliated with the democratic party and had literally millions of members; Nazi groups were similarly powerful. Today both are tiny fringe groups that make a lot of noise but are unimportant. When the KKK was the standard, only free speech laws allowed the Civil Rights movement to take hold as a new, an at the time radical and fringe idea. If you continue to ban anything that isn't in line with the standard belief; you are restricting people's rights just as Stalin and Hitler did, albeit with the promoted belief being significantly more permissive then either of those two.

Freedom of speech should be allowed as long as it doesn't offend anybody. The problem is that some people are always offended by anything. So a judgement must take place to find out how reasonably offensive something is. If not this then allow 100% freedom of speech and let people deal with each other :lol:

We already know these types of people exist though. Why encourage them? I personally don't like censorship myself, but I don't see anything good coming out of KKK rallies or the likes. Let's take Hitler for example. Since he had the opportunity to preach to millions of people, these people actually started believing his ideals. He put the thoughts into their heads. People are indecisive so they seek a leader and they seek a niche. I think allowing hate speeches will just bring in more followers and make the problem more prevalent.

But we've also seen in America where free speech is upheld, and people start agreeing with the hate speeches, and false information gets thrown around. For example, the fact that everybody knows about the KKK is a demonstration that these groups get too big.

 

 

 

The KKK, Neo-Nazi groups and other various fringe groups have become much, much smaller in recent times. At one point the KKK was officially affiliated with the democratic party and had literally millions of members; Nazi groups were similarly powerful. Today both are tiny fringe groups that make a lot of noise but are unimportant. When the KKK was the standard, only free speech laws allowed the Civil Rights movement to take hold as a new, an at the time radical and fringe idea. If you continue to ban anything that isn't in line with the standard belief; you are restricting people's rights just as Stalin and Hitler did, albeit with the promoted belief being significantly more permissive then either of those two.

 

Of course, we mustn't generalise about radical ideas. But when said ideas will cause the harm of a person or a group of people, you mustn't allow free speech. The Civil Rights movement was for the purpose of preventing the harm of a group of people, so it's fine.

Tell that to the Black Panthers; not everything is good about a generally helpful movement. People always see violence as the answer.

I generally draw the line where speech directly incites violence, though sometimes it's a hard line to draw. If people have ideas they want to express which I find offensive, they can tell everyone about them and feel equally offended when society judges them negatively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7842344.stm

 

 

 

More info on Wilders.

 

 

 

I really respect organizations like ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) for what they do.

Who gives a rat's, if Geert Wilders offended any Muslims.

 

These people are far too sensitive, give them an inch of compassion and they will take a mile of favours.

 

Look at the situation in France, and some other Northern European Countries. Their kindness wll not be repayed.

 

 

 

Such was the Muslim outcry that, Fitna was removed, wait for it...on the internet.

 

 

 

Frankly they should all follow Chopper's example

 

 

 

As long as they learn to co-exist peacefully without, being singled out because of their "oh so precious beliefs".

 

Recently here in Australia, a Imam tried to legalise polygamy. :roll:

 

As long as they learn to co-exist peacefully without, being singled out because of their "oh so precious beliefs".

 

Recently here in Australia, a Imam tried to legalise polygamy. :roll:

 

 

 

You can't just tell people to drop their beliefs, no matter how minuscule or sacred they are. We will most likely see less and less emphasis taking place on these beliefs as Islamic immigrants become more used to western society and it's beliefs. It's a slow transition but eventually they will think and act quite like us while upholding the basics of Islam such as the 5 daily prayers towards Mecca, the Wudu and completing the Hajj while dropping the thoughts of required conversion or execution of non-believers.

 

 

 

I've already noticed a lot of that happening within Ireland, a country with a hige percentage of Islamic immigrants.

 

 

 

This topic isn't about Islam Adrenal, it's about free-speech, the vast majority of your post was just bashing and stereotyping Muslims, nothing to do with free speech so if you want to debate with me further on this do it by PM please.

Who gives a rat's, if Geert Wilders offended any Muslims.

 

These people are far too sensitive, give them an inch of compassion and they will take a mile of favours.

 

 

 

 

Give it a rest. We all get it, you don't like Muslims, you've made it abundantly clear for the 5th or 6th time now you don't need to keep ramming it down our throats. As Kranked said, this topic is about freedom of speech, the Wilders point was just an example to make a point.

 

 

 

I'm sure if somebody posted as many posts bashing your beliefs you'd be up in arms and moaning about it.

[yt]EJKRF2uB8xU[/yt]

Tryto, while I think the guy has a good point, his "study" of the Qur'an is laughable, just like most atheists on youtube, and people that cite http://www.evilbible.com/.

[EJKRF2uB8xU]

 

Is this guy trying to say that Islam is a violent religion? Say it ain't so!

But his actions have caused a political storm. Commissioner Michael Sherman said Condells views were stunning because of his stereotyping and bigotry of the tone and the language.

 

 

 

And commissioner Elliot Cohen called the tape insulting, degenerating and racist.

 

 

 

People should not be allowed to spew racist propaganda without others being able to respond, Cohen said. Its not about free speech - its hate speech.

 

 

 

It's not like this guy doesn't have a track record either.

 

 

 

I don't belong to any religion (being a hopeful but skeptical agnostic) but when people take passages of any holy book literally, then it distorts the true meaning of the faith.