NationStates Jolt Archive

This wouldn't happen in the United States where a person has a right to speak without prior restraint, subject to penalties for abuse of the right. Abuses include slander, obscenity, incitement to crime, contempt of court or sedition (treasonable utterances against one's country).

Thus the United States also, places certain restrictions on freedom of speech. The move by Senator Conroy to push an internet censorship bill through Federal Parliament has sparked an outcry amongst many sections of the community that a government attempting to filter the Internet is an assault on free speech , will slow down Australia's already slow internet speeds and will most likely be ineffective anyway as people will simply switch servers. A common complaint is that legitimate senders of information will be blocked by this legislation but that Spam will be as prevalent as ever.

An Adelaide court has just sentenced a holocaust denier to three months jail for 24 counts of Holocaust Denial (arguing that the murder of six million Jews and tens of thousands of Gypsies, Eastern Europeans etc, was a myth). The US Consul in Melbourne, Michael Thurston, said that hate speech, however offensive, was protected by the US Constitution. Hence, with regard to holocaust denial and racial vilification, Australia is closer to the legal positions of many European countries that to the USA.

What do you think? Should Holocaust Deniers be punished for airing their views? Should they be censored?

by Larine Statham

The Age, May 14, 2009

HOLOCAUST revisionist Fredrick Toben has been sentenced to three months' jail for ignoring a court order preventing him publishing racist material on the internet.

Found guilty on 24 counts of contempt by the Federal Court in Adelaide, Toben, 65, was sentenced yesterday by Justice Bruce Lander, who stayed the sentence for 14 days pending appeal.

The allegations were brought against Toben by the former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Jeremy Jones, in 1996.

Following rulings by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, the Federal Court in 2002 ruled Toben be forbidden from publishing anti-semitic material on his Adelaide Institute website.

Justice Lander said Toben continued to breach the orders, including publishing a document on the morning of the penalty hearing, scandalising the court.

"Evidence showed a continuing public defiance of the authority of the court," he said.

Toben's lawyer David Perkins argued his client should be able to serve the custodial sentence in home detention and requested time to appeal.

Despite noting that Toben's reasons for seeking an appeal "were a very late invention", Justice Lander stayed the jail sentence to enable Mr Perkins to submit the necessary paperwork.

"The world is my prison; where can I run to?" Toben told reporters outside court. "I am under legal advice, but I am quite prepared to sacrifice my physical comforts for the sake of free expression."

Adelaide Institute acting director Peter Hartung said the website would continue to operate should Toben be absent. "Dr Toben has shown himself to be a man of great integrity who will not bend … even prison will not make him recant his views," he said.

Toben will reappear in court later this month.

AAP

Being in Australia has become increasingly perilous! :eek:

Being in Australia has become increasingly perilous! :eek:

Only if you want to deny the holocaust. Or use the internet.......

Only if you want to deny the holocaust. Or use the internet.......

Galloism say:

This man do both. Too perilous for him to go back and face the peril.

Galloism say:

This man do both. Too perilous for him to go back and face the peril.

I suggest you keep him then.

They should just force the guy to deny the Holocaust on top of a fruit box on a busy street corner. That will make him seem like all the other crazy guys, and eventually people will tune him out.

you' know before all these laws came into play was there a big holocaust denial movement in Oz? did people go and catch children after a particularly steamy episode of the Simpsons?

and lets get NS banned from Australia:

the Holocaust never happened! the Holocaust never happened! the Holocaust never happened! the Holocaust never happened! Crocodile Dundee is nothing compared to Bond! the Holocaust never happened! Australians can't drink! the Holocaust never happened!

One of the things that makes being an American worth it. Other nations can criticize us all they want, but with a very few exceptions, I can say, "Yeah, but I have freedom of speech, and you don't."

This wouldn't happen in the United States where a person has a right to speak without prior restraint, subject to penalties for abuse of the right. Abuses include slander, obscenity, incitement to crime, contempt of court or sedition (treasonable utterances against one's country).


Maybe Holocaust denial could constitute just that.

One of the things that makes being an American worth it. Other nations can criticize us all they want, but with a very few exceptions, I can say, "Yeah, but I have freedom of speech, and you don't."

No, you don't. You can claim to legally have a high level thereof, but you also have laws regulating some speech - libel and slander, particularly. All civilized governments allow speech against them, and culturally the US has even less free speech than the world right now: Michelle Bachmann trying to get "anti-American" activities investigated, Republicans calling dissent against Bush treason. And yet here you are, claiming America "has free speech" and other countries "do not".

It doesn't work that way. Threats are speech too, and so is publicizing this man's address and getting people to play loud music where he lives at all hours. These wouldn't be accepted in the US, either. So, no, you don't get to use Mr. Himmler here as an example of how "other countries are less free, nyaa". First of all, because your country has legal restrictions on speech as well. Second of all, because your country has even more cultural restrictions on freedom of speech than most.

This wouldn't happen in the United States where a person has a right to speak without prior restraint, subject to penalties for abuse of the right. Abuses include slander, obscenity, incitement to crime, contempt of court or sedition (treasonable utterances against one's country).

Which Republicans spent eight years calling ANY speech against Bush. So, no, America isn't that much freer in this regard.

Galloism say:

awww I want a hot NS'ers to post stuff for me :(

also if you two are doing what I think your doing I'm so gonna call the cops

One of the things that makes being an American worth it. Other nations can criticize us all they want, but with a very few exceptions, I can say, "Yeah, but I have freedom of speech, and you don't."

well as one of those that also have free-ish (fuck:() speech I can honestly say that it might be partly to blame for us

I mean I do wonder if constantly calling Germans Nazi's is causing issues

Maybe Holocaust denial could constitute just that.

how so? it just involves believing something there is nothing really inherently aggressive about it

Which Republicans spent eight years calling ANY speech against Bush. So, no, America isn't that much freer in this regard.

you got banned from an IRC about 6 years ago ffs get over it already democrats no matter how much you baww where never lynched

Maybe Holocaust denial could constitute just that.

Uh...forgive my ignorance, but you're going to have to show me those contortions before I'll believe it.

No, you don't. You can claim to legally have a high level thereof, but you also have laws regulating some speech - libel and slander, particularly.

I'm gonna stop you right there, because anything you say after this doesn't really matter. Libel and slander are CRIMES, get it? Spreading false accusations or rumors about another person in print (libel) and out loud (slander) is illegal. The restriction comes when speech infringes upon others' rights. If you can't understand that, anything else you say on the topic is almost completely irrelevant.

Which Republicans spent eight years calling ANY speech against Bush. So, no, America isn't that much freer in this regard.

Please don't tell me that you can't tell the difference between a right-wing talking head CLAIMING sedition or treason and ACTUAL CHARGES of sedition or treason? The fact that you can't show me a single instance of charges being filed means that calling someone else's words treasonous is just another part of free speech -- one which YOU endorse, by the way.

you got banned from an IRC about 6 years ago ffs get over it already democrats no matter how much you baww where never lynched

Culturally (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html), America (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0305-08.htm) isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt#.22Fuck_the_Draft.22) free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt#.22Meet_the_Fuckers.22).

What they did to me at IRC is but a drop in an ocean of links, one that doesn't even compare to what was done to these people. And the reason there are "only" four links is Google is slow right now.

Please don't tell me that you can't tell the difference between a right-wing talking head CLAIMING sedition or treason and ACTUAL CHARGES of sedition or treason? The fact that you can't show me a single instance of charges being filed means that calling someone else's words treasonous is just another part of free speech -- one which YOU endorse, by the way.

Check the links in my response to Call to Power. America does have cultural restrictions on speech.

Culturally (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html), America (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0305-08.htm) isn't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt#.22Fuck_the_Draft.22) free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_T-shirt#.22Meet_the_Fuckers.22).

What they did to me at IRC is but a drop in an ocean of links, one that doesn't even compare to what was done to these people. And the reason there are "only" four links is Google is slow right now.

So, you've linked us three people there - one refused to leave when directed by representatives of the owner of a mall, and so trespassed on private property.

The second was overturned by the supreme court, and precedent laid about free speech - you know, actually being free to speak.

And the third where a person was asked to leave a privately owned airline by a representative of the airline.


I don't really see how the government is clamping down on free speech there, as the Australian government appears to be clamping down on free speech. However, not knowing what he said, we don't know if he was inciting violence, etc.

Apples and oranges, friend.

how so? it just involves believing something there is nothing really inherently aggressive about it


Not directly, I agree.
Though indirectly, since it isn't just "believing" it, but also telling other people that the Holocaust never happened, it could be seen as a part of neonazism, or as a premise to advocating ethnical discrimination.

I don't really see how the government is clamping down on free speech there, as the Australian government appears to be clamping down on free speech.

Apples and oranges, friend.

So, because the beam in your eye is privately owned, you get to complain about the government-owned mote in the others'?

Edit: Did you know that it's impossible to translate culturally situations in which someone is called a "socialist" from American works to Brazil? Sure, you can translate the words, but the situation is untranslatale. For a reason. Nobody here ever called politically someone else a "socialist", a "capitalist" or "anti-Brazilian". No one here goes "if you hate Brazil so much, leave" to a political opponent. And that's not because it's forbidden; it isn't. That's because, somehow, in America, that claims to have so much free speech, the people themselves make sure said free speech has restrictions, lest people are harrassed.

So, because the beam in your eye is privately owned, you get to complain about the government-owned mote in the others'?

No, but I can tell someone to get off my property if I don't like their haircut. If they refuse, I can get them arrested for trespass. That is not a government clampdown on free expression.

Culturally, if you do certain things in certain places, the public isn't going to like it. If you go around making anti-Jew jokes in Israel, it probably won't go over well. However, it is your right to say them, and it is their right to tell you to get off their property or off their airplane.

None of this amounts to free speech suppression, but only the logical outcome of your use of free speech - right or wrong, that's how it is.

Check the links in my response to Call to Power. America does have cultural restrictions on speech.

I have. I've also checked Galloism's complete shutdown of that irrelevant argument. You're wrong, pal, just live with it.

Culturally, if you do certain things in certain places, the public isn't going to like it. If you go around making anti-Jew jokes in Israel, it probably won't go over well. However, it is your right to say them, and it is their right to tell you to get off their property or off their airplane.

First of all, unless Southwestern is a really small company, that plane didn't belong to any of its crew, so that's irrelevant.

Second of all, she paid for the ticket.

I'm gonna stop you right there, because anything you say after this doesn't really matter. Libel and slander are CRIMES, get it? Spreading false accusations or rumors about another person in print (libel) and out loud (slander) is illegal. The restriction comes when speech infringes upon others' rights. If you can't understand that, anything else you say on the topic is almost completely irrelevant.

Not to mention that this 'culturally unfree' bullshit is a totally meaningless concept.

Not to mention that this 'culturally unfree' bullshit is a totally meaningless concept.

Maybe so, but you lose all credibility when you propose that crimes be allowed in the name of some kind of complete freedom of speech. If you assert something publicly and it damages someone's character, and it's simply not true, you're guilty of libel and/or slander. Simple as that. Your freedom ends where another's begins.

First of all, unless Southwestern is a really small company, that plane didn't belong to any of its crew, so that's irrelevant.

Second of all, she paid for the ticket.

Representatives of the airline are allowed to make decisions on behalf of the airline itself. She doesn't have to call every shareholder to make sure it's ok, or get a majority opinion.

In addition, flight crew is allowed far more latitude on who can and can't go than any other "normal" profession, just because of passenger safety and security issues.

In addition to that, it is not said whether or not she received a refund or a later flight or any sort of compensation for the inconvenience. Most likely she did - it's been airline policy since forever that if a person is bumped or kicked off an airplane for any reason that the ticket is refunded or a later flight is scheduled.


Besides all that, it's really irrelevant as it's a private airline not owned by the government.

Not to mention that this 'culturally unfree' bullshit is a totally meaningless concept.

Feel free to look up how many people were bothered in Brazil for wearing a shirt, then.

Culturally (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html)

the security guards told him to shove off with a shirt and he refused which is a stupid thing to do as all he really needed to do was put a jumper on

he was not on public property either which as you' know is 9/10ths of the law

What they did to me at IRC is but a drop in an ocean of links

nobody cares that you got banned from a chatroom this is the internet and its owners rules

its like me getting pissy that there are censers on this forum

the reason there are "only" four links is Google is slow right now.

google works fine here try google.co.uk :)

In addition to that, it is not said whether or not she received a refund or a later flight or any sort of compensation for the inconvenience. Most likely she did - it's been airline policy since forever that if a person is bumped or kicked off an airplane for any reason that the ticket is refunded or a later flight is scheduled.

Do you think that would be enough?

Do you think that would be enough?

Well, if not, she always has the right to sue the airline. If Americans know how to do anything well, it's sue.


Also, I noticed that you conveniently overlooked this:

Besides all that, it's really irrelevant as it's a private airline not owned by the government.

nobody cares that you got banned from a chatroom this is the internet and its owners rules

its like me getting pissy that there are censers on this forum

I've never seen anyone swinging a smoking canister of incense here. When did this become an Eastern Orthodox board?

Not directly, I agree.
Though indirectly, since it isn't just "believing" it, but also telling other people that the Holocaust never happened, it could be seen as a part of neonazism, or as a premise to advocating ethnical discrimination.

:eek: the Iranian president is a neo-nazi?!

linking arguments with "omg you must be a nazi!!1" is a tad immature and very anti-history truthiness if you ask me

Feel free to look up how many people were bothered in Brazil for wearing a shirt, then.

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/30/brazil-blogs-banned-from-the-2008-elections/

“The electoral campaign on the Internet will only be allowed on candidates' purpose-built web pages intended exclusively for the campaign”

will that do?

I've never seen anyone swinging a smoking canister of incense here. When did this become an Eastern Orthodox board?

incense is used to cover up smells like cigarette smoke and Max Barry's dad is always going though his room looking for reasons to ground him

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/03/30/brazil-blogs-banned-from-the-2008-elections/

“The electoral campaign on the Internet will only be allowed on candidates' purpose-built web pages intended exclusively for the campaign”

will that do?

Mmm.

Either the TSE justices here mistook blogging for spamming or they just went insane.

But, point.

the security guards told him to shove off with a shirt and he refused which is a stupid thing to do as all he really needed to do was put a jumper on

he was not on public property either which as you' know is 9/10ths of the law


That's sorta bunkem though innit? They used existing trespass laws, for the sake of stamping down on his free speach. Somebody did not like the senitments expressed on the T-Shirt and so they asked him to leave and of course when he refused, then the trespass law comes in. However If he coverd up he would have ben fine? Well that is certianly restricting his freedom of speach.

Well, if not, she always has the right to sue the airline. If Americans know how to do anything well, it's sue.

She should have sued the crew too. Drive them to poverty, make an example out of them.

That's sorta bunkem though innit? They used existing trespass laws, for the sake of stamping down on his free speach. Somebody did not like the senitments expressed on the T-Shirt and so they asked him to leave and of course when he refused, then the trespass law comes in. However If he coverd up he would have ben fine? Well that is certianly restricting his freedom of speach.

Read the thread. Private airline. They don't want you on, they can ask you to leave. You don't leave when asked, you're trespassing. Why is that hard to grasp?

:eek: the Iranian president is a neo-nazi?!
Isn't that what the Israeli government usually says?


linking arguments with "omg you must be a nazi!!1" is a tad immature and very anti-history truthiness if you ask me

You see, it really depends on local sensibilities. In Germany, Italy or Austria it is paramount that neonazis are kept at bay (at least theoretically it is so).

She should have sued the crew too. Drive them to poverty, make an example out of them.

Generally, in the US, you're limited in suing individuals acting in their capacity as employees. Generally, you can only sue the individual if they have grossly violated company policy, were very malicious, acted way outside their authority, etc etc.

Generally, in the US, you're limited in suing individuals acting in their capacity as employees. Generally, you can only sue the individual if they have grossly violated company policy, were very malicious, acted way outside their authority, etc etc.

Then turn it into a circus until the crew loses their jobs and livelihoods.

Read the thread. Private airline. They don't want you on, they can ask you to leave. You don't leave when asked, you're trespassing. Why is that hard to grasp?

Well my response was to the story wearing the T-Shirt in the mall, so :p to ya.

Go read that story. You'll find that somebody took offence at his 'give peace a chance' slogan on the T-shirt, he was then asked to leave the mall. Why, why was he asked to leave? His T-Shirt may have caused offence but surely that is no reason to ask him to leave? Unless of course those doing the asking didn't like the sentiments his T-Shirt was expressing and so by asking him to leave, they were activly trying to shut him up.


We don't like what you are saying pal, so out you go! Shit man how hard is that to understand?

Well my response was to the story wearing the T-Shirt in the mall, so :p to ya.

Go read that story. You'll find that somebody took offence at his 'give peace a chance' slogan on the T-shirt, he was then asked to leave the mall. Why, why was he asked to leave? His T-Shirt may have caused offence but surely that is no reason to ask him to leave? Unless of course those doing the asking didn't like the sentiments his T-Shirt was expressing and so by asking him to leave, they were activly trying to shut him up.


We don't like what you are saying pal, so out you go! Shit man how hard is that to understand?

And an interesting thing it is. "Give peace a chance" is quite a nicer message than "meet the fuckers". That people were offended by the notion of peace is disturbing to say the least.

Well my response was to the story wearing the T-Shirt in the mall, so :p to ya.

Go read that story. You'll find that somebody took offence at his 'give peace a chance' slogan on the T-shirt, he was then asked to leave the mall. Why, why was he asked to leave? His T-Shirt may have caused offence but surely that is no reason to ask him to leave? Unless of course those doing the asking didn't like the sentiments his T-Shirt was expressing and so by asking him to leave, they were activly trying to shut him up.


We don't like what you are saying pal, so out you go! Shit man how hard is that to understand?

The mall is private property. If the person who complained is legitimate ownership or representatives thereof, you must leave if they ask you to. If t-shirt boy was so aggrieved, why isn't this being made more of in the press or via lawsuits?

The mall is private property. If the person who complained is legitimate ownership or representatives thereof, you must leave if they ask you to. If t-shirt boy was so aggrieved, why isn't this being made more of in the press or via lawsuits?

Yeah, the nice thing about America is, we have the freedom to be idiots. We can kick people off our private property for any idiotic reason we want and the government can't really do anything about it.

The mall is private property. If the person who complained is legitimate ownership or representatives thereof, you must leave if they ask you to. If t-shirt boy was so aggrieved, why isn't this being made more of in the press or via lawsuits?

It was, back then.

This is not good. In the long run, all it does is lend credibility to what this dummy thinks. ("Oooh! Can't talk about that! What's the big secret then?")

Letting him speak his mind can lead to others investigating history's mysteries which is a good thing.

Instead of jail, he should be ordered to bring his debate here to Jolt!
:D

Then turn it into a circus until the crew loses their jobs and livelihoods.

I'm going to propose a hypothetical. Let's suppose you own a house that sits on a small piece of land. I don't know whether you do or not, but that's irrelevant.

What's important about this small piece of land is that is right next to or across from the Capitol Building (or equivalent) for the Brazilian national government. Now, a guy comes onto your land, seeing as it's adjacent, and yells obscenities at the Capitol building, and wears a T-Shirt that says "<Current Political Party in Power> sucks! Bring back the Nazis!"

Now, would you kick this person off your land?

If so, should they sue you?

I'm going to propose a hypothetical. Let's suppose you own a house that sits on a small piece of land. I don't know whether you do or not, but that's irrelevant.

What's important about this small piece of land is that is right next to or across from the Capitol Building (or equivalent) for the Brazilian national government. Now, a guy comes onto your land, seeing as it's adjacent, and yells obscenities at the Capitol building, and wears a T-Shirt that says "<Current Political Party in Power> sucks! Bring back the Nazis!"

Now, would you kick this person off your land?

If so, should they sue you?

Find out his address, record his antics, send both to the Jewish and Israeli associations anonymously.

Find out his address, record his antics, send both to the Jewish and Israeli associations anonymously.

So, rather than tell him to get off your property, you would incite violence, and most likely bring about vandalism, assault, or murder on him. Is that what you're saying?

Murder is a pretty serious speech suppression tactic. In fact, it is *the* speech suppression tactic most preferred by 3rd world dictatorships.

Kim Jong-il approves of your tactics. Are you suggesting that Brazil should become more like North Korea?

Nanatsu say:

Heikoku, ya vale. Tu argumento ha pasado de ser violento a completamente ridiculo. No te agarres de paja, macho. O contestas o te retiras. Me jode tener que decirte esto a ti, que me caes de puta madre pero... joder!

What do you think? Should Holocaust Deniers be punished for airing their views? Should they be censored? Aye! =D

So, rather than tell him to get off your property, you would incite violence, and most likely bring about vandalism, assault, or murder on him. Is that what you're saying?

Murder is a pretty serious speech suppression tactic. In fact, it is *the* speech suppression tactic most preferred by 3rd world dictatorships.

Kim Jong-il approves of your tactics. Are you suggesting that Brazil should become more like North Korea?

Nanatsu say:

Heikoku, ya vale. Tu argumento ha pasado de ser violento a completamente ridiculo. No te agarres de paja, macho. O contestas o te retiras. Me jode tener que decirte esto a ti, que me caes de puta madre pero... joder!

1- Okay, okay, you got me. I'd not really do that. *Sighs* Sorry, that issue still frustrates me.

I'd call the police to get him off there.

But, regardless, the property is mine, the plane isn't the pilot's. The guy is being disruptive, not wearing a shirt. And the guy didn't pay any fee to get in my property.

2- Bién, bién. Desculpe.

But, regardless, the property is mine, the plane isn't the pilot's.

The pilot is an agent of the owner. You don't think bouncers actually own the bars that they throw people out of, do you?

The pilot is an agent of the owner. You don't think bouncers actually own the bars that they throw people out of, do you?

The rest of the analogy is still there.

But, regardless, the property is mine, the plane isn't the pilot's. The guy is being disruptive, not wearing a shirt. And the guy didn't pay any fee to get in my property.

1. The plane may not belong to the pilot, but the pilot is a representative of the owners of the plane, so in effect he is the owner in that he has the authority to decide who stays on the plane. Same thing applies to the mall idiocy.

2. So if the guy in Gallo's example had paid you to go onto your property you do not feel you have the right to revoke said permission?

1- Okay, okay, you got me. I'd not really do that. *Sighs* Sorry, that issue still frustrates me.

I'd call the police to get him off there.

Thank you.

But, regardless, the property is mine, the plane isn't the pilot's.

Not in possession, but in control it is. It is actually codified into law. The Federal Aviation Regulations part 91.3 subsection (a) defines the pilot's responsibilities:

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

Therefore, the plane is his responsibility, and he has full right to control everything that happens aboard.

The guy is being disruptive, not wearing a shirt. And the guy didn't pay any fee to get in my property.

So a guy wearing a T-Shirt standing on your property silently with a T-Shirt that says "I hate Heikoku" with pretty flowers on it is ok?

Even if he did pay a fee to be there, it's irrelevant. If you refund the fee, and revoke his right to be there, he still has to leave.

Thank you.



Not in possession, but in control it is. It is actually codified into law. The Federal Aviation Regulations part 91.3 subsection (a) defines the pilot's responsibilities:



Therefore, the plane is his responsibility, and he has full right to control everything that happens aboard.



So a guy wearing a T-Shirt standing on your property silently with a T-Shirt that says "I hate Heikoku" with pretty flowers on it is ok?

Even if he did pay a fee to be there, it's irrelevant. If you refund the fee, and revoke his right to be there, he still has to leave.

Again, the shirt would be personal in this case.

(And... >.> Tell Nanatsu I apologize.)

1. The plane may not belong to the pilot, but the pilot is a representative of the owners of the plane, so in effect he is the owner in that he has the authority to decide who stays on the plane. Same thing applies to the mall idiocy.

2. So if the guy in Gallo's example had paid you to go onto your property you do not feel you have the right to revoke said permission?

1- Very well, but then the person has the right to make a media circus out of it.

2- In the case of the flight, the woman's schedule was disrupted too...

1- Very well, but then the person has the right to make a media circus out of it.
If they want, sure
2- In the case of the flight, the woman's schedule was disrupted too...
So?

So?

So she should be given more than just a refund.

Again, the shirt would be personal in this case.

"I hate <Heikoku's Political Party>" then, or perhaps "<Heikoku's Political Party> are all fuckers" would be more appropriate.


There are plenty of things to criticize the U.S. for that's perfectly valid and reasonable and I will agree with you on. This is not one of those things.

(And... >.> Tell Nanatsu I apologize.)

Will do.

"I hate <Heikoku's Political Party>" then, or perhaps "<Heikoku's Political Party> are all fuckers" would be more appropriate.


There are plenty of things to criticize the U.S. for that's perfectly valid and reasonable and I will agree with you on. This is not one of those things.



Will do.

Stumbled upon another example of what I called a cultural (attempt at) suppression of dissent:

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

Stumbled upon another example of what I called a cultural (attempt at) suppression of dissent:

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp

I see you ignored me.

Criticizing someone else's use of free speech is, in of itself, protected as free speech. Is that really so hard to understand?

In addition, don't ever link that tripe again. Five sentences in and I already have a headache.

I see you ignored me.

Criticizing someone else's use of free speech is, in of itself, protected as free speech. Is that really so hard to understand?

In addition, don't ever link that tripe again. Five sentences in and I already have a headache.

Ok. On THAT example of the airline, I mildly concede, provided the woman gets to make a media circus out of it, thus depriving said airline of customers.

As for the tripe I linked to, welcome to my world. It sucks. :p

And that's more than criticism. That was an attempt to silence them through specious arguments.

So she should be given more than just a refund.

Her schedule is not the airlines responsibility. If she feels that she is entitled to more than just getting her money back she can sue the airline.

Her schedule is not the airlines responsibility. If she feels that she is entitled to more than just getting her money back she can sue the airline.

In this case, it is, yes. She couldn't have reasonably expected the airline to do that.

Ok. On THAT example of the airline, I mildly concede, provided the woman gets to make a media circus out of it, thus depriving said airline of customers.

Oh, absolutely. That's also protected as free speech. The same could be said for the mall guy.

As for the tripe I linked to, welcome to my world. It sucks. :p

You could stop reading it. It might help your anger issues.

And that's more than criticism. That was an attempt to silence them through specious arguments.

Even if so, you can answer their arguments with arguments of your own rather than just giving in. Free speech entitles you to counter any arguments with your own arguments, start a dialogue, and get a discussion going.

What you are advocating is not free speech; it's a silencing of free speech that you don't like. Which, in itself, goes against everything free speech is. What you are advocating is repression of free speech.

Fucking ridiculous.

Fucking ridiculous.

Nanatsu say:

Tell me about it. I still don't know what the airline thing has to do with the Australian one. I have a headache. I want to kill someone. Should I kill Galloism? He's closest.

In this case, it is, yes. She couldn't have reasonably expected the airline to do that.

She couldn't have reasonably expected there to possibly be problems arising from wearing a shirt with an obscenity on it?
Also she couldn't have just complied with the request?

Nanatsu say:

Tell me about it. I still don't know what the airline thing has to do with the Australian one. I have a headache. I want to kill someone. Should I kill Galloism? He's closest.

Don't give in to those urges Nanatsu... Just wound him slightly :D

Don't give in to those urges Nanatsu... Just wound him slightly :D

Nanatsu say:

Would rabidly biting him be acceptable? He's tasty.

Nanatsu say:

Would rabidly biting him be acceptable? He's tasty.

Sure

Oh, absolutely. That's also protected as free speech. The same could be said for the mall guy.



You could stop reading it. It might help your anger issues.



Even if so, you can answer their arguments with arguments of your own rather than just giving in. Free speech entitles you to counter any arguments with your own arguments, start a dialogue, and get a discussion going.

What you are advocating is not free speech; it's a silencing of free speech that you don't like. Which, in itself, goes against everything free speech is. What you are advocating is repression of free speech.

Oh, heavens, no.

I don't want them jailed, let alone killed. I want them humiliated. I want people on the street to point at them and laugh, I want people openly calling them idiots and simpletons for the crap they spout. I want them to feel and know that NOBODY listens to them, and that they are utterly powerless to change anything, because their voices are too weak and their votes are too few. Defeat is worse than death because you have to live with it. Indeed, should that be the case, I'd wish a long life upon them - Ref: Szayel Aporro Granz.

Nanatsu say:

Would rabidly biting him be acceptable? He's tasty.

I want an otaku woman to find me tasty. :(

I don't want them jailed. I want them humiliated. I want people on the street to point at them and laugh, I want people openly calling them idiots and simpletons for the crap they spout. I want them to feel and know that NOBODY listens to them, and that they are utterly powerless to change anything, because their voices are too weak and their votes are too few.

That will come in time, but you can't force people to point and laugh, anymore than you can force people to take other people onto their private property if they don't want them there.

However, you have stated that this person is engaging in "cultural repression" of free speech, which I still do not understand and, in fact, makes no sense at all whatsoever. What do you propose be done, then?

In fact, this conversation has strayed so far from it's original point and you've shifted the goal posts so many times, I'm not even sure what your position is and can no longer address it properly.

Therefore, I will post something humorous and appropriate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434)

That will come in time, but you can't force people to point and laugh, anymore than you can force people to take other people onto their private property if they don't want them there.

However, you have stated that this person is engaging in "cultural repression" of free speech, which I still do not understand and, in fact, makes no sense at all whatsoever. What do you propose be done, then?

In fact, this conversation has strayed so far from it's original point and you've shifted the goal posts so many times, I'm not even sure what your position is and can no longer address it properly.

Therefore, I will post something humorous and appropriate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o76WQzVJ434)

My point to this all (believe it or not) was that the USA isn't as pristine-clean regarding free speech as a guy far in the beginning of the thread claimed it to be.

My point to this all (believe it or not) was that the USA isn't as pristine-clean regarding free speech as a guy far in the beginning of the thread claimed it to be.

And you have failed to produce any evidence of the government repressing any free speech at all, outside of slander and libel, and even those crimes are really hard to prove under U.S. law. The standard of proof for a criminal case of libel or slander is absurdly high in the United States.

In short, only by inventing this "cultural repression" thing, which has no basis in this discussion or in reality, can you keep on bashing the United States.

Back your shit up, please.

And you have failed to produce any evidence of the government repressing any free speech at all, outside of slander and libel, and even those crimes are really hard to prove under U.S. law. The standard of proof for a criminal case of libel or slander is absurdly high in the United States.

In short, only by inventing this "cultural repression" thing, which has no basis in this discussion or in reality, can you keep on bashing the United States.

Back your shit up, please.

It's not "bashing the US", it's responding to a guy that claimed that the US "has free speech" while other countries "do not".

Nanatsu say:

Tell me about it. I still don't know what the airline thing has to do with the Australian one. I have a headache. I want to kill someone. Should I kill Galloism? He's closest.
Yes, we will cover for you. No one will ever know.
I want an otaku woman to find me tasty. :(

It'll happen one day.

My point to this all (believe it or not) was that the USA isn't as pristine-clean regarding free speech as a guy far in the beginning of the thread claimed it to be.

And you have yet to show how it is "culturally restricted" which is what your original claim was.

Your best effort was with the bit about the guy with the "Give peace a chance" t-shirt. A story with which I am quite familiar since it took place very close to where I live. However, both that and the airlines example aren't examples of the government restricting free speech.

It's not "bashing the US", it's responding to a guy that claimed that the US "has free speech" while other countries "do not".

Well, I would say we have freer speech than Australia. That seems to be the case.

Our Nazis post on the internet freely.

It's not "bashing the US", it's responding to a guy that claimed that the US "has free speech" while other countries "do not".

The U.S. does have free speech, and a lot of other countries don't, so I'm not sure where the problem is. Is the American protection of free speech perfect? No, of course not.

Which Republicans spent eight years calling ANY speech against Bush. So, no, America isn't that much freer in this regard.

Yeah, remember when the Republican party pressed charges of treason against everyone who criticized Bush? Yeah that was pretty fuc--oh wait, yeah that didn't happen.

Then turn it into a circus until the crew loses their jobs and livelihoods.

One only hopes that they don't have any mouths to feed or anything. God forbid anyone innocent should need to suffer for your petty vengeance. :rolleyes:

It's not "bashing the US", it's responding to a guy that claimed that the US "has free speech" while other countries "do not".

Actually, I said "with a very few exceptions", do not. There are a few others.

One only hopes that they don't have any mouths to feed or anything. God forbid anyone innocent should need to suffer for your petty vengeance. :rolleyes:

If they are unable to do a job that involves dealing with people without mistreating them, they shouldn't be doing a job that involves dealing with people.

Actually, I said "with a very few exceptions", do not. There are a few others.

Which, again, isn't really true.

Which, again, isn't really true.

It really is. Even quite a few first world countries don't appear to have the level of free speech the US has - Germany, Italy, and Australia for starters.

It really is. Even quite a few first world countries don't appear to have the level of free speech the US has - Germany, Italy, and Australia for starters.

What Heik doesn't seem to be getting is the fact that we haven'y been saying that no-one has freer speech than the U.S., just that as you just pointed out there are 1st world nations who have less free speech.

What Heik doesn't seem to be getting is the fact that we haven'y been saying that no-one has freer speech than the U.S., just that as you just pointed out there are 1st world nations who have less free speech.

How is it that you have freer (wow, that's a word) speech than us?

How is it that you have freer (wow, that's a word) speech than us?

I never said we did, I don't know enough about what restrictions (if any) there are on speech in the UK to make such a statement.

I never said we did, I don't know enough about what restrictions (if any) there are on speech in the UK to make such a statement.

Well there's Political Correctness, does that count? Do you have it? Do you (like me) pay little attention to it?

Well there's Political Correctness, does that count? Do you have it? Do you (like me) pay little attention to it?

Yeah, we have PC bullshit as well, and yes I ignore it.

Yeah, we have PC bullshit as well, and yes I ignore it.

Bet it's not as bad as it is here.

Bet it's not as bad as it is here.

I don't know enough about the UK to know for sure, but every Brit I've ever met is painfully polite... is that what you mean?

I don't know enough about the UK to know for sure, but every Brit I've ever met is painfully polite... is that what you mean?

Not really,lol.

It's ridiculous censoring.

Bet it's not as bad as it is here.

I'm not in a position to say...

Not really,lol.

It's ridiculous censoring.

You mean like on the radio/tv?

You mean like on the radio/tv?

Not really.


Like, you know the song Ba Ba Blacksheep? It now has to be called Ba Ba Rainbowsheep.

Not really.


Like, you know the song Ba Ba Blacksheep? It now has to be called Ba Ba Rainbowsheep.

Umm...

Err, ah... I'm going to go sit over there now. *walks away shaking head*

Umm...

Err, ah... I'm going to go sit over there now. *walks away shaking head*

You've never heard of Ba Ba Blacksheep?

You've never heard of Ba Ba Blacksheep?

Nursery rhyme right?

I don't see why it had to be changed.

Nursery rhyme right?

I don't see why it had to be changed.

Cos it's racist apparently. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379114/Baa-baa-rainbow-sheep.html)

Nursery rhyme right?

I don't see why it had to be changed.

That just shows how much of a racist you are...
I guess, I agree that it's ridiculous
:p

Are there any folks around here that deny the Holocaust? hehehe

Cos it's racist apparently. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379114/Baa-baa-rainbow-sheep.html)

You really believe what the Daily fucking Fail says?

Are there any folks around here that deny the Holocaust? hehehe

I don't.

Cos it's racist apparently. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379114/Baa-baa-rainbow-sheep.html)

Wikipedia says it's not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa,_Baa,_Black_Sheep_(nursery_rhyme)#Origins_and_meaning)

Wikipedia says it's not. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baa,_Baa,_Black_Sheep_(nursery_rhyme)#Origins_and_meaning)

Literally 30 seconds ago I was on that page.

So?

Literally 30 seconds ago I was on that page.

So?

So, strong The Fail is in England.

So, strong The Fail is in England.

Your lack of win.... Disturbs me.

Your lack of win.... Disturbs me.

Shit!

I must make my escape! *runs to the balloon*

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/10/16/darth-vader-balloon_6648.jpg

So, strong The Fail is in England.

Tis on some levels. On others America Epically Fails.

Tis on some levels. On others America Epically Fails.

I can't argue with that.

Still, many of the things I hear coming out of England lately are epic fail.

Shit!

I must make my escape! *runs to the balloon*

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/10/16/darth-vader-balloon_6648.jpg
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/funny-pictures-lol-squid.jpg

I can't argue with that.

Still, many of the things I hear coming out of England lately are epic fail.

Like?

Still, many of the things I hear coming out of England lately are epic fail.

RoI in particular.

RoI in particular.

Oooh, there was no need for that, bitch.

Like?

Well, lets see:

First, No guns for law enforcement.
Second, you created Australia, and look how that turned out.
Third, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Boles. In ugliness, England won.
Fourth, your queen's hats.
Fifth, your guards' hats.
Sixth, The Spice Girls. 'nuff said.
Seventh, you adopted Madonna, and, while America appreciates it, we still think it's a fail on your part.
Eighth, English Pudding.
Ninth, Tony Blair


However, that being said, England very much redeems itself with Monty Python.

First, No guns for law enforcement.

This isn't actually true.

Well, lets see:

First, No guns for law enforcement.
Cos we can't get guns in 3 days like you, so guns ain't so much of a problem.
Second, you created Australia, and look how that turned out.
Not as bad as creating the US.
Third, Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Boles. In ugliness, England won.
No argument.

Oh, no wait- Hillary Clinton.
Fourth, your queen's hats.
They're lovely
Fifth, your guards' hats.
They're awesome.
Sixth, The Spice Girls. 'nuff said.
Fair enough.
Seventh, you adopted Madonna, and, while America appreciates it, we still think it's a fail on your part.
We gave her back. Shame on you.


However, that being said, England very much redeems itself with Monty Python.
Yeah, and you gave us Star Trekk...um...thanks.

Cos we can't get guns in 3 days like you, so guns ain't so much of a problem.

Doesn't take me three days to get a gun. That's a terrible wait.

Not as bad as creating the US.

Burn. :p I walked into that.

No argument.

Oh, no wait- Hillary Clinton.

First, Hillary's not royalty. Second, you can't compare Hillary against Camilla and say that Hillary's the ugly one. I mean, they're both hideous, but there are levels, and that's not even a contest.

We gave her back. Shame on you.
You were supposed to be our allies, backstabber. Why couldn't you send her to one of the Axis of Evil - North Korea, China, something...

Yeah, and you gave us Star Trekk...um...thanks.

How about Mel Brooks?

Doesn't take me three days to get a gun. That's a terrible wait.
:eek:


Burn. :p I walked into that.

That you did.

First, Hillary's not royalty. Second, you can't compare Hillary against Camilla and say that Hillary's the ugly one. I mean, they're both hideous, but there are levels, and that's not even a contest.
I'd rather fuck Camilla than Hillary. In fact- I'd rather fuck you than Hillary.

You were supposed to be our allies, backstabber. Why couldn't you send her to one of the Axis of Evil - North Korea, China, something...

Hey! You fucking spawned her- you should have her back- giving her to us was virtually a war crime.

How about Mel Brooks?
Never heard of him. Is that really bad?

I'd rather fuck Camilla than Hillary. In fact- I'd rather fuck you than Hillary.

I am a sexy bastard. However, just to mindfuck, think about Camilla fucking Hillary. Mwahahahahaha.

Also, Nanatsu say:

I applaud you for your counter. Now I want to fuck him, Camilla, and Hillary - all at the same time.

Hey! You fucking spawned her- you should have her back- giving her to us was virtually a war crime.

Hey, when we do it, it's not a war crime. It's an alternative strategy.

Never heard of him. Is that really bad?

You should look up Spaceballs.

Shit!

I must make my escape! *runs to the balloon*

http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/10/16/darth-vader-balloon_6648.jpg

I would pay gigantic amounts of money to take just one ride over my town with that... :tongue:

I am a sexy bastard. However, just to mindfuck, think about Camilla fucking Hillary. Mwahahahahaha.
You dicckhead-why-why did you have to say that. You sick fuck.
Also, Nanatsu say:

I applaud you for your counter. Now I want to fuck him, Camilla, and Hillary - all at the same time.
That's much better, actually.


Hey, when we do it, it's not a war crime. It's an alternative strategy.
Oh, right sorry I forgot you were special.


You should look up Spaceballs.

FTW?

Also, that was before my time.

You dicckhead-why-why did you have to say that. You sick fuck.

Mwahahahaha.

By the way, Rule #34.

FTW?

Also, that was before my time.

You could also look up Airplane and Airplane II. Those were both awesome.

Also, don't restrict yourself to movies made in the last five years. There's some great stuff out there from the 80s and 90s.

Not a lot from the 80s, but some.

FTW?

Also, that was before my time.
Point? Led Zeppelin, Iron Maiden, Spaceballs, Star Wars, Baroque music... All before my time, yet I still enjoy each and every one of them. Don't judge something on what time period it came from, judge it on whether or not you like it.

Mwahahahaha.

By the way, Rule #34.
What?



You could also look up Airplane and Airplane II. Those were both awesome.

Also, don't restrict yourself to movies made in the last five years. There's some great stuff out there from the 80s and 90s.

Not a lot from the 80s, but some.
You old people and your taste in films. :rolleyes:

What?

http://pitofhell.com/images/rule-34.jpg
You old people and your taste in films. :rolleyes:
I'm not old and I love many of those films. :mad:

What?
#34 If an object can be conjectured, there is porn made of it.

You old people and your taste in films. :rolleyes:

You've never even seen them. You can't be sure that we are not 100% right. Plus, I'll hit you with the cane if you don't watch them.

You've never even seen them. You can't be sure that we are not 100% right. Plus, I'll hit you with the cane if you don't watch them.

I'd like to see you try, old man.

http://pitofhell.com/images/rule-34.jpg

I'm not old and I love many of those films. :mad:

Nah, I like some old films to, like Hitchcock.

Nah, I like some old films to, like Hitchcock.

80s and 90s comedies were fantastic though. You've got Airplane, Airplane 2, Spaceballs, The Naked Gun, Spy Hard, Blazing Saddles, etc etc.

As if you'd care ROI.
Ah, now I'm interested.
80s and 90s comedies were fantastic though. You've got Airplane, Airplane 2, Spaceballs, The Naked Gun, Spy Hard, Blazing Saddles, etc etc.
Didn't that have that black dude who killed his wife and a jewish waiter in it?

Other than that, I've heard of none.


What about "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"? That's old and awesome.

Ah, now I'm interested.

Didn't that have that black dude who killed his wife and a jewish waiter in it?

Yeah, but it was before he killed his wife.

Other than that, I've heard of none.

You poor poor deprived child. Give me an FTP server address to upload too, and you shall have them by the end of the month.

What about "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"? That's old and awesome.

1998 is not old.

Yeah, but it was before he killed his wife.

Oh, when people still loved him.

You poor poor deprived child. Give me an FTP server address to upload too, and you shall have them by the end of the month.

Deprived? I'm sitting here on the interwebz, cigarettes and booze to hand and watching The Mighty Bush. Hardly deprived.

1998 is not old.

Tis, I was 4/5.

Deprived? I'm sitting here on the interwebz, cigarettes and booze to hand and watching The Mighty Bush. Hardly deprived.

Deprived, obviously. And illegal. (Assuming you aren't actually an FBI agent here in order to catch us doing teh illegal thingz)

Tis, I was 4/5.
Tisn't, and I was younger. Old is late 50's/Early 60's. Old is when you can do a remake of something without it being trash.

Deprived, obviously. And illegal. (Assuming you aren't actually an FBI agent here in order to catch us doing teh illegal thingz)
How is it?

Tisn't, and I was younger. Old is late 50's/Early 60's. Old is when you can do a remake of something without it being trash.

You were younger than me?

How is it?


According to the math, you'd be only 16. Unless laws in the UK are radically different for alcohol and tobacco consumption, which they very well might be, please inform me if that is the case.


You were younger than me?
Aye. I would have been only 4 in late '98.

According to the math, you'd be only 16. Unless laws in the UK are radically different for alcohol and tobacco consumption, which they very well might be, please inform me if that is the case.
15, actually. It's only illegal to buy it, not to smoke/drink it.
Aye. I would have been only 4 in late '98.

This is 1998 we're talking about, yeah?

15, actually. It's only illegal to buy it, not to smoke/drink it.

Hurm, didn't know that. *googles just in case*

This is 1998 we're talking about, yeah?
Yea.

Hurm, didn't know that. *googles just in case*

Yea.

You're 16?

You're 16?

*counts* 14 until August. 4 in late '98 = Late '94 birth date.

*counts* 14 until August. 4 in late '98 = Late '94 birth date.

WTF? I always thought you were ancient.

WTF? I always thought you were ancient.

Hardly. Slightly archaic tastes, an early join date, and a dislike for bad debating techniques, yes, but ancient? I'm still young to this world.:p

Hardly. Slightly archaic tastes, an early join date, and a dislike for bad debating techniques, yes, but ancient? I'm still young to this world.:p

I know, you're a fresh faced baby.

I know, you're a fresh faced baby.

If you had seen the NSG pics thread... :tongue:

But I digress.

HOLOCAUST! SHOULD DENYING IT BE ILLEGAL? IS THIS DECISION RIGHT? WE'RE ON TOPIC! Please, Oh God, don't ban us!

If you had seen the NSG pics thread... :tongue:
You made me search through 20 fucking pages, bitch. Strange facial expression.
But I digress.

HOLOCAUST! SHOULD DENYING IT BE ILLEGAL? IS THIS DECISION RIGHT? WE'RE ON TOPIC! Please, Oh God, don't ban us!

THE HOLOCAUST WAS VERY,VERY NAUGHTY! DENYING IT SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL! THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT IS FUCKED UP! THIS IS NOT A MASSIVE THREAD HIJACK!

You made me search through 20 fucking pages, bitch. Strange facial expression.

I do my best to leave my mark on those who see me. :wink:


THE HOLOCAUST WAS VERY,VERY NAUGHTY! DENYING IT SHOULDN'T BE ILLEGAL! THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT IS FUCKED UP! THIS IS NOT A MASSIVE THREAD HIJACK!
:tongue::tongue:

Jewish lobby wins again.

If you had seen the NSG pics thread... :tongue:

But I digress.

HOLOCAUST! SHOULD DENYING IT BE ILLEGAL? IS THIS DECISION RIGHT? WE'RE ON TOPIC! Please, Oh God, don't ban us!

Or heard his entry in the NSG's sexiest voice thread, which was initially placed in the wrong gender category...


EDIT: To be somewhat on topic...
Holocaust denial should not be illegal, no matter how stupid it is.

Or heard his entry in the NSG's sexiest voice thread, which was initially placed in the wrong gender category...



Dammit. Why must I be reminded of that? :( :wink: (Twas a while ago)

EDIT: To be somewhat on topic...
Holocaust denial should not be illegal, no matter how stupid it is.
I agree.

What next will Australia jail global warming deniers.

Dammit. Why must I be reminded of that? :( :wink: (Twas a while ago)
'cause I still remember... And yeah, I wasn't really around in January to do it again.
I agree.
:D
What next will Australia jail global warming deniers.
Maybe