Freedom of speech (Page 3)

Outbackjack: This is an interesting thread.

Its seems that we have come to the logical conclusion that there is really no such thing as free speech.I like the example of yelling "Fire" in a crowded area.

McCarthyism is a great example of how governments can repress free speech though on the other side is an autocratic government which wont let you speak against it(Nazism,Leninism etc).

As for banning people from entering a country.Australia banned the holocaust denier David Irvine access to this country on many occasions with various governments which I wholeheartedly support.

I personally have no problem stopping organised racists from gathering and have stopped them in the past to great effect.

StuckInTheSixties: David, Michael Savage is a specialist at bloviating, hateful hyperbole. I listened to him for years, and I'm quite aware of what he thinks, or at least what he says, about Islam. That YouTube video is Savage at his least offensive and most rational. It doesn't represent his normal daily ranting, where it's typical for him to express the most reprehensible, hateful anti-Islam rhetoric to be found on the radio. (And that's saying a mouthful.) It's his shtick. It's what he does. Although the bulk of that non-typical example of Michael Savage is a pretty tame history lesson, the quote I plucked from it is a far better representation of what he does and says daily. I'll repeat the quote again:

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

There is no context, whether you're "against 'Islam' in general" or just "against those that practice 'Seventh Century' Islam," where that is acceptable.

That is a clear-cut, unequivocal endorsement of the "outlawing" of an idea that one doesn't like. I don't like the idea either, but I like trashing the First Amendment less. (Unlike Outbackjack) I'm not willing to become THEM to fight THEM.

Who knows if Savage actually means that trash he spews? But if you go on the radio as a professional talk-radio personality, you should, at a minimum, be held to the words you utter.

Outbackjack: "That is a clear-cut, unequivocal endorsement of the "outlawing" of an idea that one doesn't like. I don't like the idea either, but I like trashing the First Amendment less. (Unlike Outbackjack) I'm not willing to become THEM to fight THEM."

Thats ridiculous to say that we are becoming like evil racist murderous fascists when we try and stop them.

Our actions in the past helped stop an organisation from recruiting new members and they were actively bombing ethnic restaurants.Our actions actually might have saved lives and I am proud to have been involved.

But by all means continue to preach from your armchair and ignore these thugs at your own peril.

Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing.

StuckInTheSixties: We're talking about speech in this Forum thread, are we not? The hallmark of fascism is a repression of the opposition. A fascist state will not tolerate the free expression of ideas that are in opposition to that state.

Several times in this thread you've endorsed state repression of ideas:

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

"I personally have no problem stopping organised racists from gathering and have stopped them in the past to great effect."

Jack, you and I agree that groups like the KKK are evil and destructive, and neither of us wants to live in the kind of world that they would impose upon us were they in power. But we part ways when it comes to how groups like the KKK should be dealt with, and how we should safeguard ourselves against groups like that.

You would repress ideas in opposition to the state (at least those ideas that you personally abhor). In this regard, your attitude dovetails perfectly with those you find evil. They would repress your freedoms, and you would repress theirs. In that particular way, you are birds of a feather.

You are willing and enthusiastic to repress the free speech of those you disagree with. You want to have a political system where someone gets to decide who is allowed to speak freely, and who isn't; which ideas are allowed to be expressed, and which ideas aren't. In this regard, you are willing to trust the welfare of the state to those that are in power, at least as long as those in power happen to agree with you.

This is, at its core, a fascistic attitude. You may very well have something good, not evil, as your intent. But you are perverting that good intention with an evil means of implementing it. In this regard, you become what you fight. In this regard, you are them.

I, on the other hand, am not willing to repress someone's freedom to express an idea that I disagree with. I do not want to have a political system where someone gets to decide who is allowed to speak freely, and who isn't; which ideas are allowed to be expressed, and which ideas aren't. In this regard, I am not willing to trust the welfare of the state to those that are in power, even if those in power happen to agree with me.

StuckInTheSixties: There is an inherent risk involved in either of our two differing political stances.

The risk, which you dwell on ad nauseum, is that if allowed to express their ideas freely, those that are evil - "fascists," "the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world" - will be able to flourish and come to power. That risk, does, at least conceptually, exist. But what you fail to take into consideration is that those societies were not completely free and open when those dictators came into power. The repression increased exponentially under their power, of course, but they didn't start from free and open societies with long traditions of individual freedom to stand upon.

There is another risk, one which you seem to refuse to acknowledge - the risk in trusting that those with the power to repress "evil" ideas will, given that power, only use it benevolently, or at least, use it in a manner in which you approve of. We are humans, and human nature being what it is, power tends to corrupt us. And the power of a state to allow "good" ideas and repress "evil" ideas lies on that slippery slope of human nature. You seem content to trust that as long as those in power happen to agree with you now, they will continue to agree with you in the future. If you allow the state to determine which ideas are good/allowed, and which ideas are evil/prohibited, the "good" idea you share with those in power may, in the future, become the "evil" idea that then becomes prohibited.

Risk is at the heart of this statement of yours:

"But by all means continue to preach from your armchair and ignore these thugs at your own peril.

That smug statement has one correct component, and one erroneous component. I do, indeed, “preach” for freedom of expression. It’s important to me. I do not, however, “ignore” those “thugs.”

Were I not acknowledging the risk those "thugs" present society, I would, of course, ignore them. But I don't ignore them. Thugs like the KKK can't be ignored. The risk is too great. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center you mentioned earlier, do us a great service by monitoring those thugs. The government monitors them, as well. But repressing their evil ideas presents great risks, as well.

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, there is a distinct difference between expressing an evil idea and carrying out an evil act. There are, and should be, laws prohibiting evil acts. Those "thugs" should be allowed to express their evil ideas, but not to carry out their evil acts.

The freedoms that I "preach," that you find so intolerable, come with a price. The price of those freedoms is vigilance. While I want the state allow those thugs to express their evil ideas, I do not want the state to "ignore" them. Those thugs should be kept under scrutiny, and if their evil ideas change into unlawful evil acts, then, and only then, should the state step in and stop them.

That is the way to minimize the risks associated with the free expression of evil ideas, while at the same time, also minimizing the risks of state succumbing to human nature and becoming evil itself. The best remedy for evil speech is MORE speech, not less speech.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (See? I can also end with a snappy adage! )

Outbackjack: I will make this my last comment.

I really respect you Stuck in the 60s and consider you a friend but I really have to empthasise that it was people like you who procrastinated and never got off their arse and stopped the Hitlers and Mussolinis of this world.


How would you feel if something unfolded like I have described.I have physically beaten Nazis to the kerb and am extremely proud of what I have done.We have possibly saved lives.

If you had the same chance then would you act the same way?

StuckInTheSixties: No.

davidk14: Beaten Nazi's to the curb?

StuckInTheSixties: "I have physically beaten Nazis to the kerb and am extremely proud of what I have done."

Quite the ironic statement. Were you wearing your brownshirt and jackboots (pun totally intended) when you were physically beating Nazis to the curb? Did you have a rally in a stadium afterwards? I can just imagine the action:

"I am (whack!) beating you (thud!) because you (bap!) have a (kick!) political stance (bonk!) that might (whap!) become violent (wham!), you thug!

"it was people like you who procrastinated and never got off their arse and stopped the Hitlers and Mussolinis of this world."

This is the same logic that George W. Bush used for going into Iraq. He felt that Saddam Hussein was such a grave threat to the world that the USA had to take pre-emptive action. I know you don't endorse Bush and the Iraq war.

Or do you mean that the German populace was asleep to this fascist that came into power because they "never got off their arse"? When Hitler came into power, he did so with the enthusiastic support of German political and military leaders, and the populace at large.

But let me correct your characterization of my stance as "procrastination." Procrastination means "to postpone doing something, especially as a regular practice." My stance on free speech, as relates to the "fascist thugs" you rant about, has nothing to do with postponing anything. As I clearly said, those who use their rights of free expression to promote ideas that, were they carried out, would be a danger to the state, should be monitored closely, with vigilance. Nor is this sitting on their "arse."

Jack, you keep alluding to this heroic action of yours that (shift into hysterical voice) ...

"May have saved lives! May have saved lives!

MAY HAVE SAVED LIIIIIVVVVVEEEEEESSSSSSSS!"

Umm ... Jack, why don't you tell the Forum just exactly what you did that "may have saved lives"? Come on. Lay out your story for us.

jim-jim!: I always thought David Irving was some crazy racist bastard until I saw a lecture and then some documentary footage... It is so outragously scandalous what the media have done to that guy, wether you agree with him or not. He does happen to be one of the most well researched persons on WW2... no wonder they wanna shut him up.

davidk14: .

Don't fall for the propaganda. Irving has zero credibility…unless you are a complete imbecile . The Holocaust happened and anything and anyone saying anything to the contrary is ridiculous . By him denying the Holocaust cancels out anything he has to say. Don’t be one of the morons who thinks he has any credibility at all.

.

jim-jim!: From what I know he has never denied the holocuast... just tried to show the "facts" about the true proportions and implications of it. That's what I mean about the media shit canning the guy.. the very fact that you are using the term "holocuast denier" tells me you haven't looked into it much... hey, don't get me wrong, I'm no big fan but it illustrates to me the importance of freedom of speech

davidk14: .

Just a “few” bits of information regarding this racist, bigoted anti-Semitic lunatic:

David Irving is unique among modern Holocaust deniers for having first established a reputation as a popular, if controversial, chronicler of World War II. This reputation, combined with his flair for self-promotion and involvement in high-profile lawsuits, made him one of the best-known Holocaust deniers in the world. He suffered a major blow, however, when he lost an internationally publicized legal battle with Professor Deborah Lipstadt, whom he had accused of libel, before a London court. Labeled a Holocaust denier and anti-Semite by Justice Charles Gray, and increasingly shunned by publishing houses, it is unlikely that Irving will ever regain the mainstream cachet he once enjoyed. He remains one of the world's most effective purveyors of Holocaust denial.

Irving belies his claims to disinterested scholarship through anti-Semitic and racist commentary and pro-Nazi posts on his website:

On April 20, 2009, all visitors to his site were temporarily directed to a splash page that expressed gratitude to Adolf Hitler, on the 120th anniversary of his birth, for “sav[ing] Western Europe – and the world – from Bolshevism.”

Irving writes on March 2, 2009 that “one of the great benefits of a judge having called me an anti-semite” is that “I can speak it like it is.”

In a November 4, 2008 commentary, Irving suggests that Jews “maneuvered” to install Barack Obama in the White House because they view him as “pliable.” He also describes Obama's election as a “massive, but not final, humiliation of White America.”

In March 2009, a British newspaper reported that Irving funds his activities and lifestyle through the sale of Nazi memorabilia.



I could go on and on and on and post dozens and dozens of racist, bigoted and disgusting statements by this holocaust denier.

.

oooREDEYEooo:
'GOD SAVE AMERICA'

..."if America had 'acted' sooner - rather than later at the expense of their 'precious' stock exchange...maybe the Holocaust would not even be part of a questionable history to begin with...just follow the 'companies' prior to the 'eagles' delayed reaction towards the Jews and at the same time think of Isreal at this present moment"...

oooTHE-EAGLE-HAS-LANDED---LONG-AFTER-AS-ALWAYS-EYEooo
ooo

jim-jim!: I guess David Irving is a moron... so would you say we should ban him from expressing his opinion? it's a tricky question because where does it end? I think Geoff said something earlier in the thread about inflaming racist behaviours with public speech... I dunno the answer

StuckInTheSixties: Reprehensible as his ideas are, I say let him speak and then counter his speech with opposing views.

I don't want to repress his ideas, and I don't want anyone repressing mine ... or yours ... or anyone's.

Counter bad ideas with good ideas.

jim-jim!: Good answer... if he's stupid enough to stick his head out...

Robert_Paulson: you can have your freedom of speech as long as you dont draw pictures of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)!!!!

Wampum6: SITS has it just right! And true!

StuckInTheSixties: Picture of Mohammed -->

davidk14: Perhaps this is a picture

Robert_Paulson: Burn in hellfire infidel! may all your children be born with small penises....even the girls!!!! Inshallah!

StuckInTheSixties: That's the one I should have used, David.

flowers98: in a lot of countries , there are a lot of things that can't be tolerated. If you are a muslim, you can't change your religion, if you marry a muslim, all your kids must be muslims by law.

Other religion worship houses/churches/temples must get approval from the authority who will consider whether these places will hinder islamic belief and they are limited to certain numbers. no loudspeakers from these worship places, so that muslims can't hear the worship.

if you convert to muslim, you can't convert back freely.

and as you know, much much more.


On zero ground, America is a free country but also a very foolish one. to honour this so call freedom, america has ignored the grief of its thousands "true" (the ones that work so hard and stay for america) citizens. America did not protect what she supposed to protect.

Malobear: News is the U.S. government is thinking of treason charges against the person as well as Wikileaks for recent disclosure of classified documents. Serious stuff. Thoughts to go along with Geoff's original question?