Newsflash: Spain "not the Arabian desert of 14 centuries ago..." - Page 3

notyoueither · January 16, 2004, 05:26

Let's give DRo his thread back.

DRoseDARs · January 16, 2004, 05:26

And again I say:

DRoseDARs · January 16, 2004, 05:28

Actually, there's a kind of facination in watching a threadjacking unfold before one's eyes...

notyoueither · January 16, 2004, 05:30

Especially when you were in on it. Squid slapping indeed.

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 05:32

Damn, we had that thread on the ropes, NYE. Why'd you have to puss out on me?

DRoseDARs · January 16, 2004, 05:35

For thrice I say:

There's something in the chocolate I'm eating, I'm sure of it...

Speaking of which, I can't go another round right now. I desire to do other things, like playing C3C.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Something about "inciting violence" comes to mind. Probably don't want like-minded morons getting the idea that it's ok to beat their wives since some imam wrote a book. One less opportunity to shirk responcibility for your own actions.

So you consider this 'inciting violence' so that it can be banned? What if you have a book saying if your child gets rowdy, you should smack him firmly on the butt, but without excess. Should that book be banned because it may incite child abuse?

I'm just glad that in the US something like this wouldn't be banned. Just because we think it's wrong doesn't mean we should silence it. That's also part of freedom of speech... freedom for the one we don't like.

Smacking your child on the butt is allowed under US law. Smacking your wife around if she gets rowdy isn't, unless she consents to it.

How is this not inciting violence?

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Instructing people how to physically harm others is not ok and should not be considered free speech anymore than yelling fire in a movie theater.

So, you want to ban all books on martial arts as well? Where do you draw the line?

Huh? Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you. They provide techniques for beating people senseless. There's a difference between information on how to do something and advice that you do it. That's why you can buy books on how to build a homemade bomb, but not ones that suggest you use one against suitable targets.

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 07:41

Quote:

Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you.

I bet they exist. Not every martial artist is like Mr. Miyagi.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber
How about movies where wife beating is depected?

If you present wife-beating in a manner that suggests you approve of it then you can get your work restricted.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Martial arts books do not suggest that you beat people senseless if they annoy you.

I bet they exist. Not every martial artist is like Mr. Miyagi.

If a martial arts book suggests that you commit acts of violence in situations where violence is not a legally justifiable solution then they should indeed be censored.

Inciting violence. One of the few exceptions to free speech.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
What if the movie is called "How to Beat Your Wife The Muslim Way"?

If it doesn't suggest that you actually do it then I'm fine with it.

I love technicalities.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Oh, should I say that is in regards to not being allowed to promote hatred (or violence) against an identifiable group, and not screaming something in a theatre?

Promotion of hatred, while certainly offensive, falls quite clearly under the purview of free speech in civilized nations.

By that definition only the US is civilised.

Although I do disagree with hate laws, I also believe that inciting violence against a class of people (go burn down a random Jews house!) should be equivalent to inciting violence against a specific person (go burn down X's house).

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 07:48

Quote:

By that definition only the US is civilised.

Exactly...

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Sprayber

You touch on a topic I was going to bring up because I understand what you are saying and I appreciate the arguement. There have been instances here in the US as well of certain organizations that hide behind the freedom of speech arguement that I would have no problem with the government doing away with them. I was trying to look at it from the other side of the issue.

I have no problem with instruction manuals on illegal acts as long as they do not condone the acts themselves (i.e. it's okay to tell somebody how to violate a law, but not okay to tell them to do it)

yaroslav · January 16, 2004, 07:48

The iman tried to conver that in a trial against the islam...

Fortunately there were normal muslim people in the trial that said the thruth: to bite womans isn't part of nowadays, modern islam.

In a broader sense, the free speech is more restricted in Europe than in USA. I don't know too many examples, but nazi apology, for instance, is forbidden in German (and in Spain), as is racism apology, violence apology, etc.

I don't know what model is best (USA or Europe) but I'm not unconfortable with our current model.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

By that definition only the US is civilised.

Exactly...

Actually, I think the correct solution lies somewhere between US attitude and rest of 1st world attitude.

You have the right to free speech right up to the point where you're telling somebody to violate another person's rights.

CerberusIV · January 16, 2004, 07:50

I don't know whether this is an issue in the USA (I suspect not) but in Europe there is an increasing tension between the authorities and "extremist" Islamic types who place Islamic law above the civil law of the countries they happen to be in. That leads to situations like this one where someone is promoting [their own interpretation] of the Koran and advocating something that is illegal in the country concerned.

Inciting/encouraging others to commit a criminal act is AFAIK an offence in many countries.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 07:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Kitten is a rat.

That French bastard...

Allons, enfants de la Patrie,
Le jour de gloire est arrive,
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L'etendard sanglant est leve,
L'etendard sanglant est leve.

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 07:55

Quote:

You have the right to free speech right up to the point where you're telling somebody to violate another person's rights.

That's any awfully vague standard there. What's to stop the government from (for example) censoring pro-communist speech? Forcibly redistributing property and wealth would violate many people's rights, which would seem to make any calls to implement such a policy worthy of censorship under your rules. What is chegitz going to do in your world?

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 08:00

There's a difference between suggesting changing the laws and suggesting that you simply violate current laws.

That's why it's illegal to attempt to change the government of the US by force, but not illegal to vote.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 08:01

Which is why, IMO, as long as a group like NAMBLA stays on the legal advocacy side of things they should be allowed. Once they cross over and tell someone to rape children they should be broken up.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 08:01

It is not a vague standard; it's the one which is most commonly used.

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 08:03

Quote:

There's a difference between suggesting changing the laws and suggesting that you simply violate current laws.

Communist revolution isn't about "changing the laws".

Quote:

That's why it's illegal to attempt to change the government of the US by force, but not illegal to vote.

But it's not illegal to call for the change of the US government by force, nor should it be.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 08:04

AFAIK it is so illegal to call for violent overthrow of US gov't.

KrazyHorse · January 16, 2004, 08:06

What's your stance on inciting violence Drake?

If I'm part of a mob and I then stand up and tell everybody to kill someone I see on the other side of the street then am I not legally responsible for what that mob does with my suggestion?

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 08:07

Quote:

AFAIK it is so illegal to call for violent overthrow of US gov't.

Not to the best of my knowledge, but I may be wrong.

Where's Imran when you need him?

Drake Tungsten · January 16, 2004, 08:08

Quote:

What's your stance on inciting violence Drake?

I think it is bad and would never do it myself...

The Viceroy · January 16, 2004, 09:10

Its not the average person on the street that concerns me regards to such teaching, for them, free speech would only show the fool for what he was.

Its the mindless (and often indoctrinated from birth) moron's who hang on these imam's every word that concern me. Also, the tendancy for those of the same leanings, to support them come what may (or at least, apologise for them).

Just as the racist twists logic to fit his hatred, I find too many doing the same with such teaching.

Unfortunatly, there really are people out there, who will believe regardless, every word that is told them.

lord of the mark · January 16, 2004, 11:24

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
AFAIK it is so illegal to call for violent overthrow of US gov't.

It was under the Smith act, but im quite sure that was repealed some time ago.