Freedom of speech

[Prospero]

I think that most of the people who post to Hung Angels would say they are for freedom of speech - and against censorship - in the broadest terms. A site like this would not exist in a climate where pornography was rigorously censored.

The US constitution allows for freedom of speech and the French philosopher Voltaire, in the midst of a violent verbal argument with Rousseau said: "“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I share this view.

But should freedom of speech extend to hate speech?

Certainly in the UK there are laws that are aimed at preventing writing or speech which foments hatred against individuals or groups based on their race, sex or religion. And to advocate violence against various individuals or groups is illegal.

There are a lot of heated arguments in this part of the Hung Angels forum between people from the right of the political spectrum and from the left. We really do disagree quite fundamentally - and the attacks are often quite abusive. But though occasionally we trade insults there is still - at the end of the day - ground for discussion. And as with Voltaire I will and do defend the right of those with whom I disagree to express their views. I hope and believe those on the other side agree.

But there is also some virulent hate speech here which extends the boundaries out and beyond what should be considered free speech.

As a Liberal I am in favour of reasoned criticism of anything and anyone. - Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, the Hard Left, The tea Party, Christians, Moslems, Jews, ethnic minorities etc.

But would a thread that advocated hanging black people be tolerated here? I hope not. Should a thread which advocates using the most holy book of one of the world's great faiths as toilet paper be tolerated. Yet one appeared recently making such a vile suggestion. I don't believe it should still be here on this site. It offers the most profound insult possible to people of one religious group.

if the individual who posted the remarks about the Koran had posted similar remarks about The Torah or the Christian Bible he would - quite rightly - have bought forth a hurricane of criticism from a wide spectrum of opinion. If he'd advocated lynching black people he would - in all probability have been banned.

I was told - privately - why neither this thread or this individual have not yet been removed or banned. I will not repeat the explanation since it was in a private communication. But I believe it was wrong - even though i take a liberal position on freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is fine. That which denigrates an individual or a group for their race or religion (or sexual choice) is not.

Has anyone else any views on what should constitute the outer limit of acceptable free speech?

[Faldur]

Not necessarily a point that constitutes the outer limit, but a comment on civil debate. Anytime you reduce those who oppose your opinion to "stupid", "evil", or any such level of demeaning discourse you no longer have discussion. You wind up with nothing more than a bunch of people yelling at each other. Very much like what this board has become.

When we lost the ability to respect those who think differently than ourselves I have no idea. But the resulting effect is you lose the ability to reach compromise and to expand your own thinking by means of others opinions.

People who communicate opinions are generally people who honestly believe they can have an impact in their society, and want to work to try and make things better. Why that is not respected is beyond me.

Posting a thread specifically designed to insight hate, like the example you gave, is just wrong and senseless. But as far as burning Bibles, as a Christian, if you really want to waste the resources used to create the book I will loan you my lighter. Its a book, made by man, with words in it.. you can feed it to your dog as far as I am concerned.

[top4bigbutt]

This is a grate topic Prospero
I am living in the states, but I was born in Brazil, in a mixed family, Uruguayan-Brazilian
In 29 years living in Uruguay, I never heard a comment about skin color or religion
In the states is way different, I learn not to call somebody "black" because it is offensive and discriminatory, BTW I'm dark haired and my nickname in Uruguay was "negro".
I do believe people in HA are openminded and liberal, but yes I did find some thread full of intolerance, and I'm talking about skin color and religion, but only after reading your post I really understood the double standars of some people , and the not too much subtle racism behind their posts
I guess freedom of speeach has different interpretation, or maybe the moderators just look to the other side

[Prospero]

Faldur wrote: "But as far as burning Bibles, as a Christian, if you really want to waste the resources used to create the book I will loan you my lighter. Its a book, made by man, with words in it.. you can feed it to your dog as far as I am concerned."

Okay - maybe that's a bad example. But to a very devout Christian perhaps there is something that is a crucially important symbol - an object of sacred significance. When a Koran is disposed off - as with the Torah - it cannot just be thrown away or burnt. For those who believe,it is a sacred object. So Russ went out of his way to be as vile and provocative as possible to all the world's milliona and millions of Muslims. Whatever one thinks about the minority of Muslims who engage in terrorism and hideous acts - which would be vile whoever carried them out - the remark about Korans was unnacceptable. If he'd said it in an open forum - maybe Twitter for instance - it would have been removed. Rightly. My point is that though you and i certainly disagree about a wide range of things Faldur I am sure we could sit down over a beer - or glass of wine or coffee or whatever - and have a civilised discussion or argument. We might get heated in here but we do not toss racist insults around, do not talk with delight about beating people up and do not offer the most deeply gratuitous remarks to ethnic or religious groups etc That really was the point i was making.

[russtafa]

Faldur wrote: "But as far as burning Bibles, as a Christian, if you really want to waste the resources used to create the book I will loan you my lighter. Its a book, made by man, with words in it.. you can feed it to your dog as far as I am concerned."

Okay - maybe that's a bad example. But to a very devout Christian perhaps there is something that is a crucially important symbol - an object of sacred significance. When a Koran is disposed off - as with the Torah - it cannot just be thrown away or burnt. For those who believe,it is a sacred object. So Russ went out of his way to be as vile and provocative as possible to all the world's milliona and millions of Muslims. Whatever one thinks about the minority of Muslims who engage in terrorism and hideous acts - which would be vile whoever carried them out - the remark about Korans was unnacceptable. If he'd said it in an open forum - maybe Twitter for instance - it would have been removed. Rightly. My point is that though you and i certainly disagree about a wide range of things Faldur I am sure we could sit down over a beer - or glass of wine or coffee or whatever - and have a civilised discussion or argument. We might get heated in here but we do not toss racist insults around, do not talk with delight about beating people up and do not offer the most deeply gratuitous remarks to ethnic or religious groups etc That really was the point i was making.you really are full of shit you toffy nosed cunt .you left wing pricks think nothing attacking Christ you sanctimonious asshole and have been doing it since the sixties but you always stick up for those camel fucking/boy molesting muslims.you aren't a member of ANTIFA are you because those fuckers should be shot on sight .how much trouble in Europe have those fuckheads caused .get your fucking head out of your ass you dumb prick and get out of the office yah asshole and see the real world,i have heard that in some parts of Paris a Frenchman can not tread?Now to get get back to the issue of freedom of speech and away from over educated twats the FINKELSTEIN REPORT has been commisioned by the Australian Labor government to limit the freedom of speech which will suit you communist/socialist types because you are a bunch of to faced bitches:censor

[Silcc69]

I can say that you know Faldur is a pretty level headed guy, which is more than I can about Russ who is as extremist as you can get.

[russtafa]

I can say that you know Faldur is a pretty level headed guy, which is more than I can about Russ who is as extremist as you can get.And I love it lol....and there are others too

[trish]

Of course there’s the “fire in a crowed theatre” example as well as the “child pornography” example that both demonstrate that there are boundaries to free speech that most people are willing to stipulate. One might also add to those examples that sometimes conspiracy is considered a crime even when it never got much beyond the planning stage. In that case the conspirators are being charged with having the wrong sort of conversation.

Generally I don’t think the government should prohibit “hate speech.” [ Hate speech, by the way, should be distinguished from hate crimes. Hate crimes are crimes that have more than one victim; e.g. besides the obvious victim of a hate murder, there’s is a minority community that is terrorized until the perpetrator is captured and punished ... for murder and for terrorizing a community. ]

I see no reason why individuals, businesses, chat-sites etc. might not be given more latitude in banning certain kinds of speech. E.g. I have no real problem with HA mods bannning not banning russtafa, even though he’s a stupid, ignorant asshole who hardly posts anything other than whining bigoted and or racist remarks. It’s up to the site managers to decide what sort of place they want to run.

Yes, it’s okay to call people stupid and ignorant if time and again they say stupid and ignorant things. I usually start off applying the modifiers to the content of what is said, until a pattern develops that justifies application to the poster himself or herself.

This looks like it might be a fun conversation. I probably won’t be able to participate. It’s spring break and I’m off to the wilds.

[russtafa]

Of course there’s the “fire in a crowed theatre” example as well as the “child pornography” example that both demonstrate that there are boundaries to free speech that most people are willing to stipulate. One might also add to those examples that sometimes conspiracy is considered a crime even when it never got much beyond the planning stage. In that case the conspirators are being charged with having the wrong sort of conversation.

Generally I don’t think the government should prohibit “hate speech.” [ Hate speech, by the way, should be distinguished from hate crimes. Hate crimes are crimes that have more than one victim; e.g. besides the obvious victim of a hate murder, there’s is a minority community that is terrorized until the perpetrator is captured and punished ... for murder and for terrorizing a community. ]

I see no reason why individuals, businesses, chat-sites etc. might not be given more latitude in banning certain kinds of speech. E.g. I have no real problem with HA mods bannning not banning russtafa, even though he’s a stupid, ignorant asshole who hardly posts anything other than whining bigoted and or racist remarks. It’s up to the site managers to decide what sort of place they want to run.

Yes, it’s okay to call people stupid and ignorant if time and again they say stupid and ignorant things. I usually start off applying the modifiers to the content of what is said, until a pattern develops that justifies application to the poster himself or herself.

This looks like it might be a fun conversation. I probably won’t be able to participate. It’s spring break and I’m off to the wilds.
but yah love my big throbbing cock don't yah sweetie

[BluegrassCat]

Good topic, Prospero.

I certainly understand where you're coming from and I share your concern about some of the nastiness on here. But while I fully support censoring speech that incites violence against people and groups, I'm reluctant to censor speech that is disrespectful, however ugly it may be. I think Faldur has it right in that desecrating symbols only hurt feelings. And I value the right of free speech above the right to be free from disrespect. I think these differences match up with how our respective countries have handled the issue.

The sticky wicket for me, not on here so much but on national TV, is the ability of people to misrepresent the facts so freely and without consequence. The expectation that the marketplace of ideas will result in the best ideas rising to the top is severely undermined by the massive levels of misinformation in our system. It seems the UK and Canadian systems are not nearly as plagued by this as the U.S., largely thanks to their stricter controls. Of course the U.S. used have to stricter controls on the airwaves with the Fairness Doctrine and the argument could be made that you could trace our modern political polarization and nastiness to its elimination in 1987. For a number reasons the Fairness Doctrine isn't coming back so America, sadly, seems stuck with its current level of discourse.

[russtafa]

God bless the yanks

[trish]

The "fire in a crowded theater" is an example of deliberately broadcasting misinformation where the broadcast has ill consequences (e.g. causes a panic, perhaps injuries and loss of business). Seems that one could compose a reasonable law that would keep dangerous distortions and misinformation by broadcast media in check. I don't see it happening in the U.S. given our recent history of tolerance for lies and deception.

[BluegrassCat]

The "fire in a crowded theater" is an example of deliberately broadcasting misinformation where the broadcast has ill consequences (e.g. causes a panic, perhaps injuries and loss of business). Seems that one could compose a reasonable law that would keep dangerous distortions and misinformation by broadcast media in check. I don't see it happening in the U.S. given our recent history of tolerance for lies and deception.

It's especially unlikely to happen given that many industries have a financial incentive in maintaining a national discourse polluted (get it?) by misinformation and they'll lobby heavily to keep the status quo.

[russtafa]

If you stupid commo ,greenie,pinko types read the Finkelstein report thats what our commo government proposes but it works both ways =two edged sword old bean, and i hope our side cut deeper

[trish]

It's especially unlikely to happen given that many industries have a financial incentive in maintaining a national discourse polluted (get it?) by misinformation and they'll lobby heavily to keep the status quo.
It's also just too easy to scream "freedom of speech" and divert the national conversation from any nuanced discussion. That is one reason why it will never be in any politician's interest to take up the "anti-pollution" banner.

[trish]

If you stupid commo ,greenie,pinko types read the Finkelstein report thats what our commo government proposes but it works both ways =two edged sword old bean, and i hope our side cut deeper
Indeed. One could only endorse a law that regulated the most blatant and obvious forms of distortion and misinformation.

[russtafa]

hey Trish do you want me to send you a pic of my big throbbing cock ? i will if you want

[Stavros]

I agree with most of the views expressed here, but would suggest that there is a precise context in which our exchanges take place: HungAngels. The website has no charter, and I don't know who the moderators are, and there don't seem to be any rules, yet like the charter of the BBC which obliges that corporation to Inform, Educate, and Entertain, I think the purpose of HA is the same.

For the most part, it is the visual stimuli that entertains most visitors; a close second are appeals for information- on people, places and events. I would hope that someone curious about transexuals would be educated here, and what can give this site an edge is the education that members bring to the discussions -I have been introduced to many films, books, music, print media, web sites and places that I did not know of before, to give a few examples.

Here's the rub: transexuals are free on HA like few other places, transexuals have been ridiculed, abused, violently attacked and murdered for centuries, and the world wide web can be just as hostile. Admirers of transexuals have also been known to become targets of violence and abuse.

Even though most of us deplore violence, there are posts in recent threads which not only propose violent acts, but on transexuals! One poster suggested a gun be inserted into a transexuals ass and fired -the poster was free to write it down, and the post is still there, because HungAngels is free for all, a love of transexuals is not a necessary cause, and it is painfully obvious that there are posters who have no interest in transexuals but just like the sound of their own voice. But I do think that posts in which violent acts are proposed or glorified should be removed, but from what I have seen, moderators are not interested in anything other than a few commercially sensitive issues.

Freedom of speech can also become the freedom whereby people make fools of themselves; that may be the only vedict that matters.

I came across this poem by WB Yeats, sometimes HA is like a small room:

Remorse For Intemperate Speech

I RANTED to the knave and fool,
But outgrew that school,
(http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/remorse-for-intemperate-speech/#)Would transform the part,
Fit audience found, but cannot rule
My fanatic heart.
(http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/remorse-for-intemperate-speech/#)I sought my betters: though in each
Fine manners, liberal speech,
Turn hatred into sport,
Nothing said or done can reach
My fanatic heart,
Out of Ireland have we come.
Great hatred, little room,
Maimed us at the start.
I carry from my mother's womb
A fanatic heart.

[BluegrassCat]

Right on cue, a report about how major companies have intentionally worked to undermine facts that hurt their bottom line through an assortment of dirty tricks.

http://io9.com/5892059/new-report-reveals-how-corporations-undermine-science-with-fake-bloggers-and-bribes?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

[russtafa]

fuck the reds

[Ben]

You're in favor of free speech for views you despise. Otherwise you're not in favor of free speech. Now you can decide whether or not you're in favor of it.
Now, you're not defending what's being said. But you're defending their right to say it. So, there is a stark difference between defending the views -- and defending the right to express those views. The difference is crucial.
I mean, Stalin was in favor of free speech. For views he liked.

[Ben]

I mean, Ann Coulter -- I certainly don't support her views; but I support her right to express them -- was sharply attacked in Canada and essentially prevented from speaking. It seems Canada doesn't defend Ann Coulter's fundamental right to express her views.

Ottawa Says No To Ann Coulter - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukt4Unq_ztk)

[onmyknees]

I think that most of the people who post to Hung Angels would say they are for freedom of speech - and against censorship - in the broadest terms. A site like this would not exist in a climate where pornography was rigorously censored.

The US constitution allows for freedom of speech and the French philosopher Voltaire, in the midst of a violent verbal argument with Rousseau said: "“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” I share this view.

But should freedom of speech extend to hate speech?

Certainly in the UK there are laws that are aimed at preventing writing or speech which foments hatred against individuals or groups based on their race, sex or religion. And to advocate violence against various individuals or groups is illegal.

There are a lot of heated arguments in this part of the Hung Angels forum between people from the right of the political spectrum and from the left. We really do disagree quite fundamentally - and the attacks are often quite abusive. But though occasionally we trade insults there is still - at the end of the day - ground for discussion. And as with Voltaire I will and do defend the right of those with whom I disagree to express their views. I hope and believe those on the other side agree.

But there is also some virulent hate speech here which extends the boundaries out and beyond what should be considered free speech.

As a Liberal I am in favour of reasoned criticism of anything and anyone. - Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, the Hard Left, The tea Party, Christians, Moslems, Jews, ethnic minorities etc.

But would a thread that advocated hanging black people be tolerated here? I hope not. Should a thread which advocates using the most holy book of one of the world's great faiths as toilet paper be tolerated. Yet one appeared recently making such a vile suggestion. I don't believe it should still be here on this site. It offers the most profound insult possible to people of one religious group.

if the individual who posted the remarks about the Koran had posted similar remarks about The Torah or the Christian Bible he would - quite rightly - have bought forth a hurricane of criticism from a wide spectrum of opinion. If he'd advocated lynching black people he would - in all probability have been banned.

I was told - privately - why neither this thread or this individual have not yet been removed or banned. I will not repeat the explanation since it was in a private communication. But I believe it was wrong - even though i take a liberal position on freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is fine. That which denigrates an individual or a group for their race or religion (or sexual choice) is not.

Has anyone else any views on what should constitute the outer limit of acceptable free speech?

"But should freedom of speech extend to hate speech?"

No Conservative would even pose the question. The answer is quite obviously yes. You can't hump the Constitution when it works in your favor, then want to dismiss it when someone voices unkind or even hurtful things. You understand of course that the US in not the UK in this regard. We would never deny the UK equlivent of Michael Savage access to our country based on what he said. Shame on you. I'll side with Jefferson on this, but thanks just the same. Your effort to seek civil discourse may be noble, but it should never be confused...

In no subjects in the law was Jefferson more interested, and about no subjects in the law did he have more interesting and important things to say, than these two . His views regarding the line between permissible and impermissible speech were pretty simple – THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY LINE..., because there shouldn’t be any impermissible speech. Jefferson was America’s first, and probably its greatest, First Amendment absolutist; he wasn’t kidding when he said [I]were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Not even a moment!! To preserve the freedom of the human mind & freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, & speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.

[Ben]

Again, I defend Ann Coulter's right to express her views; I don't defend the views expressed.

Ann Coulter on Muslims - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_dae6Sl5O4)

Ann Coulter uses Homophobic Slur against John Edwards - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLWfACJAKVs)

[onmyknees]

Again, I defend Ann Coulter's right to express her views; I don't defend the views expressed.

Ann Coulter on Muslims - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_dae6Sl5O4)

Ann Coulter uses Homophobic Slur against John Edwards - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLWfACJAKVs)

LMAO....Ben I think what you're really attempting to say is you have the hots for Ann Coulter, but you don't always agree with what she says.

[buttslinger]

When I pass you guys on the street, please do me a favor....DON'T come over and talk to me! On this forum, don't hold back, if you're over 18, this isn't Rick's Cafe Americain, it's the POLITICS and RELIGION section! I defend my right to laugh at Ann Coulter. That bitch has got some major father issues!

[hippifried]

I don't have a problem with free speech. When somebody keeps talking a bunch of smack about things unknown to him, it just shows everybody else that he's nothing more than a stupid asshole. Incitement is the furthest extreme. That's where your crowded theater scenario comes into play. Speech is an action, & you're responsible for your actions.

Nobody's entitled to impunity. If you go out of your way to piss somebody off to the point where he hauls off & breaks your nose, well there's your retort. I don't want to hear any whining about it. Rude behavior gets rude behavior in return. That's what all this crap is, with the lies & slander. Hate speech too. It's rude & uncivilized behavior. With the anonymity of long distance communication, there seems to be a lot more uncivilized people crawling out from under their rocks. It's as if they're advocating bringing an end to any kind of social order, & reducing humanity to the level of hyenas.

[Prospero]

See there is a good healthy discourse underway with OnMyKnees quoting Jefferson. This is excellent. It's not simply hurling abuse (and hurling abuse is free too - though hardly useful in any way). It is the egregious attempt to offend a whole people with the most profound insults that - just perhaps - might be removed. (Why not post crude cartoons of Jews with big noses and bags of money? It is the same. ) The baby Goebbels wannabe we have here from Australia is clearly unable to engage in any reasoned response to this discussion unlike OnMyKnees or Faldur. So he belches hate and lubricous remarks to Trish. Profound.

Do you think Jefferson would have approved of something suggesting we defecate on the Gospels? (or on the US flag or the declaration of independence?) Would he have included the advocacy of genocide or murder as permissible free speech ? Would he even have found much of what is posted across the various threads of this forum about transexuals acceptable? I think there are lines that can be crossed. How we define them is the issue.

[Prospero]

Russtafa wrote: "get out of the office yah asshole and see the real world,"

How much experience of the real world do you have, Russ? In talking about islam for instance. Have you been to Pakistan or Afghanistan, to Egypt or Iran or Iraq, worked with Muslims in the UK, been to Central Asia or North Africa? I have - over more than three decades. What exactly is your experience of Muslims? Lets hear some facts rather than abuse?

[Stavros]

"But should freedom of speech extend to hate speech?"

No Conservative would even pose the question. The answer is quite obviously yes. You can't hump the Constitution when it works in your favor, then want to dismiss it when someone voices unkind or even hurtful things. You understand of course that the US in not the UK in this regard. We would never deny the UK equlivent of Michael Savage access to our country based on what he said. Shame on you. I'll side with Jefferson on this, but thanks just the same. Your effort to seek civil discourse may be noble, but it should never be confused...

In no subjects in the law was Jefferson more interested, and about no subjects in the law did he have more interesting and important things to say, than these two . His views regarding the line between permissible and impermissible speech were pretty simple – THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY LINE..., because there shouldn’t be any impermissible speech. Jefferson was America’s first, and probably its greatest, First Amendment absolutist; he wasn’t kidding when he said [I]were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. Not even a moment!! To preserve the freedom of the human mind & freedom of the press, every spirit should be ready to devote itself to martyrdom; for as long as we may think as we will, & speak as we think, the condition of man will proceed in improvement.

Neither you nor anyone else has responded to my argument that there is a specific context in which this debate should be taking -a forum dedicated to transexuals and their admirers, and whether or not a particular set of rules should apply here that are more exact than the ones you seem to think should be applied in society outside it; rules that take into consideration issues of sensitivity to transexuals.

Hate speech is part of your own arsenal, you have twice accused me of being anti-semitic, and although on two occasions I have offered a careful rebuttal of your hate, on neither occasion have you responded with an apology or an explanation. You cannot condemn hate speech when it is part of your own tactic of resentment when you get an argument wrong. Even a quaint slave-owner like Jefferson would see that.

But what about people who advocate violence against transexuals? In the context of HungAngels, quite apart from real life, isn't this where a boundary line should be drawn?

[Prospero]

But what about people who advocate violence against transexuals? In the context of HungAngels, quite apart from real life, isn't this where a boundary line should be drawn?

I agree with this? C'mon Faldur and OnMyKnees.. lets have response to this?

[russtafa]

Russtafa wrote: "get out of the office yah asshole and see the real world,"

How much experience of the real world do you have, Russ? In talking about islam for instance. Have you been to Pakistan or Afghanistan, to Egypt or Iran or Iraq, worked with Muslims in the UK, been to Central Asia or North Africa? I have - over more than three decades. What exactly is your experience of Muslims? Lets hear some facts rather than abuse?worked on the door of night clubs in Sydney for four years dealing with middle eastern gangs .That's more than enough for me come in contact with the revenge attacks of the Cronulla riots and that made me sick ,so i guess that's why i hate them.you might love them dickhead i don't.freedom of speech is what our government is trying to curtail because they cant deal the amount of flak coming their way .we don't have stupid tabloids like you if that's what you are thinking .our government hates all of it's critics .

[Prospero]

So your objectin to Muslims globally is dealing with criminals as a door guard? Dealing with these people will certainly give you a one-sided view. Don't you see that if you dealt only with Australian or English or American criminal elements you might think badly of any such group - but that you can hardly judge all Americans or Aussies or any group by their criminal element? Oh and I don't love them. I see them as like all people - some terrific, most ordinary and some total scum. I can hate the bad ones as much as you do - but not judge all by that yardstick.

Thanks for the insult - once again. Rather that than branding me a Communist which I certainly am not.

[russtafa]

just read the news papers old bean and look at their every day behaviour,that's enough for me .a lot of my buddys are Greek and Italian and live alongside them=not good old bean.i am giving a bit of pommie talk

[buttslinger]

Pay our Teachers!!!

DANIEL CARVER Rates The races - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walJjsqRrnc)

[buttslinger]

Sorry to exert blunt force trauma onto your thread, I think you could make freedom of speech your life's work, you could become THE authority on free speech, and while it might make you Jefferson, it wouldn't really matter. Look into the faces of the majority of transsexual goddesses on this site. Do you notice the deaf ears? They are just as right as you, they just can't articulate it like you can. If everyone realized the power of free speech, the world would be a much better place. If everyone would only do as I say, the world would be paradise! If you want Utopia, go out and find the top 100 Utopians alive today and give them a place to stay. Sending my paycheck to Africa to feed the starving .....I say send them the money we spend on Abrams tanks. Vote on it? What? Round and round. round and round.

[hippifried]

Neither you nor anyone else has responded to my argument that there is a specific context in which this debate should be taking -a forum dedicated to transexuals and their admirers, and whether or not a particular set of rules should apply here that are more exact than the ones you seem to think should be applied in society outside it; rules that take into consideration issues of sensitivity to transexuals.
No. Same rules of civilized behavior apply, regardless of who you're talking to or what you're talking about. Assholes are assholes, irrespective of the topic.

[russtafa]

No. Same rules of civilized behavior apply, regardless of who you're talking to or what you're talking about. Assholes are assholes, irrespective of the topic.
thanks hippie

[Silcc69]

worked on the door of night clubs in Sydney for four years dealing with middle eastern gangs .That's more than enough for me come in contact with the revenge attacks of the Cronulla riots and that made me sick ,so i guess that's why i hate them.you might love them dickhead i don't.freedom of speech is what our government is trying to curtail because they cant deal the amount of flak coming their way .we don't have stupid tabloids like you if that's what you are thinking .our government hates all of it's critics .

I guess with your logic it would be wise if I tried to find a wife in a night club too.

[russtafa]

I guess with your logic it would be wise if I tried to find a wife in a night club too.i couldn't give a fuck where yah found em.if yah want tips on picking up chicks ask my mate Daryl ,he does alright

[Stavros]

The report below from Minnesota may be germane to the debate on free speech; I don't use Facebook and apart from this forum, which I use because of my special interest, I don't engage in online social networking. But the obvious question is, is -who owns your Facebook account?

12-year-old US girl suing school over Facebook comments row

A 12-year-old girl is suing her school in Minnesota after being forced to hand over her Facebook password and punished for posts she made on the social networking site.


A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs








http://1.2.3.9/bmi/i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01770/Prince_60_1770649j.jpg (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/)
By Rosa Prince (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/rosa-prince/), New York

8:53PM GMT 11 Mar 2012





The case has been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and comes amid growing concern in the United States about individuals' ability to keep their email and other online accounts secret from their school, employer and government authorities.

A number of prospective employees have complained that they were forced to hand over their passwords to Facebook and Twitter when applying for jobs.

In the Minnesota case, the 12-year-old girl, known only as RS, is said to have been punished by teachers at Minnewaska Area Middle School for things she wrote on Facebook while at home, and using her own computer.

The ACLU is arguing that her First and Fourth Amendment rights, which protect freedom of speech and freedom from illegal searches respectively, were violated.

She is said to have been punished with detention after using Facebook to criticise a school hall monitor, and again after a fellow student told teachers that she had discussed sex online.

Legal papers, filed by the ACLU say: "RS was intimidated, frightened, humiliated and sobbing while she was detained in the small school room," while school staff and a sheriff's deputy read her private messages.
It went on: "RS was extremely nervous and being called out of class and being interrogated." The lawsuit says that the mother of RS had not given permission for the viewing.
A spokesman for the school district said: "The district is confident that once all facts come to light, the district's conduct will be found to be reasonable and appropriate."
The case highlights growing concern in the US about the extent to which supposedly private communications can be kept from those in authority.
The ACLU recently forced the Department of Corrections in Maryland to stop requiring applicants to provide their Facebook passwords when applying for jobs.
The Union claims job seekers are now asked to "voluntarily" log into their accounts during interviews, displaying potentially embarrassing photographs and messages. Most comply because they are afraid they will otherwise miss out on the job.
The Department told the ACLU it was seeking to weed out applicants with links to gangs.
In an recent investigation, the TV station MSNBC found that many university sports departments now require students to "friend" their coach, giving officials access to their "friends-only" posts.
The University of North Carolina handbook reads: "Each team must identify at least one coach or administrator who is responsible for having access to and regularly monitoring the content of team members' social networking sites and postings.
"The athletics department also reserves the right to have other staff members monitor athletes' posts."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9137359/12-year-old-US-girl-suing-school-over-Facebook-comments-row.html

[buttslinger]

I am a believer of free speech, but in real life I keep my mouth shut! I let "buttslinger" do my talking!
In the 60s my brother hitched to Chicago for the big UNION conference, or something, lots of guys were there from "The Grapes of Wrath" times, when Union Organizers were called COMMIES and lots of times they would get killed for their beliefs. My brother met Saul Alinsky, and after some shop talk my brother asked him if he had any personal advice for him. "Shave your beard. Nobody takes someone with a beard seriously"

[Stavros]

Here is another case of comments on Facebook landing someone in court: this time a British Asian who insulted the memory of six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan last week:

A British teenager will appear in court on charges of racially aggravated offense after posting Facebook comments about six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan last week.
In his Facebook comments Azhar Ahmed, 19, reportedly criticized the amount of attention the deaths of the six soldiers received as compared to the civilians losses Afghanistan has sustained in the NATO-led war.

A police spokesperson said that the teen "didn't make his point very well and that is why he has landed himself in bother."
Ahmed, who will appear before court on March 20, was detained last Friday and charged over the weekend. He has since been released on bail.

The six British troops were killed last week after their Warrior armored vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan. Most of the soldiers were between 19 and 21 years of age. The incident is considered the biggest single loss of life for British forces since 2006.


http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-facebook-teenage-arrest-439/

[buttslinger]

If you go to a cocktail party and yell out "I like schools!"
or "firefighters are good!"
you'll probably get cut off.
But if you yell "abortion is murder!"
or "guns should be illegal"
the party will seperate into two opposing sides and a big shouting match will break out.
And two guys in the room will be counting heads to see which side has 52 and which side has 48.
This is called a two party system.

[russtafa]

the right or left should be very careful about limiting freedom of speech because it's a dangerous path to walk except in times of national security

[Ben]

Noam Chomsky on Freedom of Speech and Anti-Fascism (5/8) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3X1zm16u90)

[Stavros]

Noam Chomsky on Freedom of Speech and Anti-Fascism (5/8) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3X1zm16u90)

If you are interested in the 'attack on free speech' in the UK that Chomsky refers to at the end of this tedious seminar, the story is in the link -it concerned a claim by the LM magzaine that ITN -the news channel, not ITV- lied about a Bosnian Prisoner of War camp, the one with the now (in)famous photo of a skeletal man. ITN sued for libel and won, because its story was true and LM's attack was found to be false. The magazine then closed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/696955.stm


Chomsky also makes reference to an 'attack on free speech' brought by the Obama administration against the Humanitarian Law Project, where the HLP was giving advice to the Kurdish (not Turkish as Chomsky says) KPP and also the Tamil Tigers on conflict resolution. Both the KPP and the Tigers were/are on the list of terrorist organisations in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_v._Humanitarian_Law_Project