Freedom of speech (Page 2)

Outbackjack: There is no doubt that it is a slippery slope.

But we can never forget that the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world came to power because noone was successful in stopping them.Its not that people didnt try(Germany had around 10.8 million card carrying communists around 1932).The Fascists were successful in using murderous means.

In Western Australia we have racial vilification laws that quite clearly stops hate speech and imprisons the people who preach it.

It works well and there is nothing hypocritical about it.

StuckInTheSixties: "But we can never forget that the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world came to power because noone was successful in stopping them."

You're implying that the only means of avoiding fascism is to restrict free speech.

Repression is repression. Your "racial vilification laws" may work well for you. Repression comes easily to the self-righteous.

I prefer fighting injustice with expression, not repression.

Outbackjack: It is one of the means.A good argument(expression) can counter the fascists but as WW2 shows it doesnt always work.

There is nothing self righteous about protecting innocent people from acts of violence.I assume you have legislation in the U.S that forbids the right to incite a riot?

That could be construed as an attack on free speech.

Also I specifically use the term hate speech as in any speech that preaches hatred.

It is interesting how your first amendment has affected the political dynamics in your country.If you had had hate speech laws in place then it would have been easier to shutdown racist/fascist organisations like the Klu Klux Kan (and save lives) rather than the battle being left to couragous organisations like
the Southern Poverty Law Centre to file law suits and hamper them financially.

Indeed the U.S is one of the few countries in the world who has a law protecting fascists.

Malobear: What all you gentlemen say is true,Freedom of speech is for everyone. For me, the whole 9/11 thing really hits home for my family. My father was outside of tower two when the planes struck.He was struck by falling debris from the building and it almost killed him. What all this put my mother thru was horrific. My mother lives in the Midwest and had no way of getting to my father and could only hear about him over the phone.
While your comparison SITS is legit from the peoples standpoint about anti Muslim feelings( and there is alot of that here these days). There is people and quite a few that see anything built as far as worship wise wrong. There is a Mosque 2 blocks from that area and several in Manhattan so freedom of speech with Muslims is not a issue in Manhattan,never has been and isn't today. But what IS the issue is a Muslim owns this property and other people trying to tell him what he can do and cant do with his land and this is the real freedom issue with it all. This is a hard decision to make and would be if the owner was Christan,Jewish, Muslim or whatever trying to build a house of worship.
I will say this again,in general you all are correct.

StuckInTheSixties: I'll happily acquiese to Geoff's wishes to see this thread remain on topic, so I won't reply to any of that.

Back to the topic:

"I assume you have legislation in the U.S that forbids the right to incite a riot?"

We do, indeed. But what you confuse is speech and action. For instance, were I to suggest, in the name of some cause I supported, that we all gather at City Hall, and have a riot, that would be allowable speech under our laws. It's speech, which is protected. But were I to be there at the gathering at City Hall, and exhort those present to riot, I would be violating those laws. What I would be doing would legally be considered to be "action," not "speech."

I get your point, however. Speech does have it's reasonable limitations. But it's not reasonable, for all of my above stated reasons, to limit "ideas," and speech expressing ideas.

Some time ago, Entropy posted a thread, also titled "Freedom of Speech," in the Religion Forum.

http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=647371&ParentId=1031192&Replied=122

In that thread, I argued, in favor of reasonable limitations to speech, with Casanova. So it would appear that while you are on one side of me, in regards to this issue, he is on the other.

Here are the rhetorical questions I asked of Casanova, underlining reasonable limitations of speech I support:

>> Would you allow perjury in a court of law?
>> Would you allow disclosure of troop dispositions to the enemy during the time of war?
>> Would you allow slander?
>> Would you allow libel?
>> Would you allow the free use of copyrighted material?
>> Would you allow the shouting of "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?
>> Would you allow the inciting of a crowd to immediately commit violence? ... (That was your rhetorical question too, Jack.)
>> Would you allow a vehicle to transmit amplified speech at extreme volume in the middle of the night in a residential neighborhood?
>> Would you allow for someone to stand up and begin reciting dirty limericks in a theatre during a movie?
>> Would you allow someone to follow your mother around, day and night, every day, calling her a "wz&~z"?

Of course it's reasonable to restrict certain actions, and even certain speech. But it's not reasonble to restrict IDEAS. That road, paved with good intentions, leads to hell, or to a repressive society, at least. That road runs on the slippery slope.

"If you had had hate speech laws in place then it would have been easier to shutdown racist/fascist organisations like the Klu Klux Kan (and save lives) rather than the battle being left to couragous organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Centre to file law suits and hamper them financially."

Indeed it would. It would also make it easier for those in power to label whatever they wanted as "hate speech" and persecute whomever they want. After all, they would be the ones determining what was permissable, and what wasn't. If you didn't agree with them, you would be aiding those racists/fascists, and subject to the same sanctions. We went through a period of what you are endorsing, a movement to do this sort of thing. It was led by a US Senator, who said he had nothing but our security in mind. He didn't want to us fall victim to those evil ones that wanted to use the freedoms that they weren't entitled to.

His name was Senator Joseph McCarthy.

I would suggest you to contact the Southern Poverty Law Center, indeed a great organization, and see if you can get anyone there to endorse your version of "freedom" of speech for only those approved for it.

You're not likely to have much luck in that endeavor.

Geoff: I don't think it could ever be decided on a 'per person' basis. As that would be discriminatory, something that has no place in a free society.

But there are limitations on freedom of expression (both social and legal), should these be extended to cover extremist viewpoints?

StuckInTheSixties: I don't think so. Repressing ideas is repressive. Much better to haul those ideas you don't like out into the sun for all to see and expose them to opposing ideas.

davidk14: .

Here’s a perfect example of “free speech”…

The American Nazi Party, a vile organization, can say what it wants. However, it would be illegal for them to act on their platform of racism.

.

Malobear: Geoff,What you are talking about is exactly what the British government has done with a radio talkshow host in San Francisco,Calif. named Michael Savage. Who is Michael Savage? http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=10

Geoff: Um, no. Not in this case.

He just wasn't allowed into the UK, there are lots of people who aren't. I suspect that there are even more who aren't allowed into the US.

I was referring to the issues across Europe with the various Neo-Nazi, Communist and radical religious groups. All of whom are far more scary than a nut-job American DJ with a hard-on for Bush.

Malobear: Well,he doesnt spin music as a DJ and he dislikes Bush and Obama lol. But I suspect you never have heard him anyways.

StuckInTheSixties: Geoff, he doesn't have a hard-on for Bush. Bush isn't nearly right-wing jingoistic enough for Michael Savage's taste.

Your description of him as a nut job is accurate, though.

Malobear: Dr. Michael Savage is a multimedia icon in the conservative movement, heard by 10 million listeners a week on "The Michael Savage Show," and syndicated across the U.S. in over 300 markets. He is also the author of 25 books, including four New York Times bestsellers. In 2007, his media presence and profile earned him the coveted "Freedom of Speech Award" from Talkers Magazine.

His passion to unearth the truth about liberalism, borders, language and culture, and his unparalleled stand for America's families, has made him the most important figure in the fight for free speech and ideals in America today.

He is the only member of the U.S. media ever blacklisted and banned from a Western nation. His ban from visiting Britain in June 2009 has made him the "poster child" for free speech – not only for Americans concerned about the cultural shift towards totalitarianism and their rights to freedom of expression, but for people around the globe. In mid-2009, this worldwide media attention concerning the ban resulted in a New Yorker magazine profile of him.

Dr. Savage holds a master's degree in medical botany and a second in medical anthropology. Additionally, he earned his PhD. from the University of California at Berkeley in epidemiology and nutrition sciences. He is an ardent conservationist, is dedicated to his family and is a proud patriot of his country.
Yes, a very educated and knowledgeable "nut-job" as you put it.The man has the right to speak his mind just as you do. If this man losses his freedom, you better start worrying about your own.

StuckInTheSixties: Michael Savage is a hack. His schtick is to be more right-wing than the other guy, regardless of how silly his diatribe is.

I spent many years listening to him in small doses (the repetitiveness of his rants wears thin pretty quickly). Anyone he happens to disagree with is a "Stalinist" that "should be shot," or a "quisling." He really loves that word "quisling." He repeats it over and over, usually in a context where it makes no sense. He just likes the word.

I can remember him ranting that any American driving a foreign made car was a "Stalinist." Oh ... but his Jaguar was exempted. And he is also a great admirer and constant praiser of the "work" of Slobodan Milosevic, and stated that America would be better if "Stalinists" and anyone not of a Judeo/Christian religion were "cleansed" as Milosevic had ethnically cleansed ethnic Albanians from Kosovo and Serbia. Curiously, it didn't seem to matter to Savage that Milosevic had been an avowed socialist up until he decided to become a "nationalist" and start bulldozing thousands of Albanians - most of whom happened to also be Muslims - into mass graves. That seemed to be okay with Savage.

He's a hack. His entire gimmick it to be as offensive as possible in an ultra-right-wing sort of way.

( And now, back to topic ... )

But I agree with this statement of yours:

"The man has the right to speak his mind just as you do. If this man losses his freedom, you better start worrying about your own."

Sebbyyy =): It's actually called "Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression." in the US. It even has the words "peaceably to assemble" in it, with a hate speech clause that clearly says free speech doesn't excuse or justify racism, or discrimination based on gender, skin color, sexual preference, etc.

Geoff: As far as I remember, the home office barred him from entering the UK on the grounds that his broadcasts included incitement to commit violence.

Which is against the law in the UK.

I'm sure that he honestly isn't as bad as the Home Office assumed, but he (like many politicians) have to be 'more patriotic than you' in order to keep the public's interest. He's possibly a nice, intelligent, thoughtful person. But he was seen as a agitator of violence by the home office.

This was at the same time that they banned Fred Phelps and his eldest daughter, in their case possibly for their own good though.

And Malo, you're right. I have never heard his show, I saw one short interview with him at the time that this happened. So I am only going from the fact that he got himself banned from entering the UK.

davidk14: .

Michael Savage Banned From Entering UK: Country Publishes List Of People Not Allowed
RAPHAEL G. SATTER | 05/ 5/09 07:27 PM |

Popular American talk-radio host, Michael Savage, who broadcasts from San Francisco and has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate," is on the list. Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

Savage told the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com that he was considering legal action against Smith for defamation.

"She's linking me with mass murderers who are in prison for killing Jewish children on buses? For my speech? The country where the Magna Carta was created?" the site quoted him as saying Tuesday.

A phone call to his home station, KNEW in San Francisco, wasn't immediately returned.

.

StuckInTheSixties: Probably because KNEW (the local Fox Radio station) isn't his home station. It used to be KSFO for many years, but he left there. I think there was a contract dispute or something. Although he lives in San Francisco, I don't believe any radio stations in that city carry his show any longer.

Malobear: If your talking local broadcast SITS, Its AM-650 KSTE in S.F. Calif. At 3 P.M. P.S.T. every day.But he is also syndicated across the U.S. thru 300 stations.
Here is Michael Savage - Lesson on History of Islam and Jihad. Broadcast about a year ago.For those that havent heard him talk

StuckInTheSixties: Ahh ... KSTE is in Sacramento, not San Francisco. Most of the Bay Area wouldn't be able to receive it.

Malobear: Sorry SITS, I was going by his website and heres exactly what it states:
SAN FRANCISCO LISTENERS!
HEAR MICHAEL BY TUNING IN
TO 650 ON THE DIAL.
JUST AS CLEAR, JUST AS STRONG.
OR LISTEN ON THE WEB
WWW.KSTE.COM
3 PM LIVE EVERY DAY

StuckInTheSixties: Never heard that station. (shrugs)

Someone! Please! Say something to bring Geoff's thread back on topic!

Malobear: Sorry again SITS lol,some here seemed interested in this fellow American. I dont agree with everything this man says,but figure like you and me,he has a right to his say. I just hope we never lose it.

StuckInTheSixties: Okay, I think I can both comment further on Michael Savage, and also bring this thread back around to Geoff's topic. He originally asked:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Is it morally justifiable to utilise legally recognised freedom of speech to demonstrate for something which would (if successful) curtail those same freedoms?

Doesn't that make someone a hypocrite and remove all credibility to their argument?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note that within the first minute of your YouTube clip of Michael Savage, while utizing the freedom of expression guaranteed him by the First Amendment, Savage advocates that same freedom of expression to be taken away from those preaching Islam. It comes right at 0:51 on the video. Savage says:

"And one day we're gonna have a leadership with the guts to outlaw such teachings."

So Savage protests that his rantings aren't permitted in the UK, but on the other hand, advocates the outlawing of Islam in the USA.

Yes, Geoff. "That make[s] someone a hypocrite and remove[s] all credibility to their argument.

davidk14: .

SITS,
However, Dr. Savage is not against “Islam” in general but he is against those that practice “Seventh Century” Islam. Listen to it again.

.