Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm embarrassed that you and I hail from the same country; embarrassed and ashamed, actually. Did you drool over everything that fell out of the mouth of your Marxist Sociology 101 professors mouth at Penn State? Group think is very, very scary.
Ditto on the first part...especially since I can tell you are one of "those" that has something against college professors/education. I'm not a marxist, nor am I a fascist. I have very unique political views, and usually over coffee with friends I will win my arguments (sad that they would never actually be implemented).
Being against hate speech is not equivalent to "group think" from 1984. Hate speech is meant to incite others. When a large group of people get too incited, it generally leads to violence. Violence is generally illegal. A good example is the KKK, another good example are those who voted for the Nazis in Germany and participated in Kristallnacht.
Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theatre is illegal for a reason. People will stampede to get out and get trampled and injured. Saying you have a bomb on an airplane or in an airport is also illegal, even if you don't actually have one, because you will frighten people, causing monetary damages and personal injury. Harrassment is also illegal. For example, if you harrass someone at work, they feel threatened and cannot perform their job, then that cause monetary and emotional/psychological damages.
The abuse of freedom of speech in our country is one of the most dangerous things out there. I used to support people like the skinheads and WBC to have their freedom of speech because of what our country stands for even though I profoundly disagreed with them. This was until I thought for a bit and realized that their speech leads to incited violence and sometimes death. I didn't need a "marxist" college professor to tell me this, I witnessed it for myself. I grew up in the south.
My reference to Glenn Beck refers to his inciting speech recently that encouraged tea partiers, et al. to go out and take action after the passage of the health care bill (that's putting it very, very mildly....I'm not going to recite his entire quote). Him and people like him (such as the Lynchburg Tea Party, who posted the address of a congressman's residence and encouraged people to 'drop by') have led to some dangerous consequences already. For example, this congressman's (Tom Perriello-D) gas lines were cut at his home. This could have caused the death of his family, but fortunately did not (no matter how much you disagree with someone, you shouldn't try to kill them or wish death on them). That's just one example, and there will undoubtedly be more in the future. You can only put so much fuel on the fire before the fire becomes out of control.
Yes, I'll let them talk. Personally, I think they're valueless, but that's not the point. As long as I'm not forced to listen, I think they should be able to say whatever they want.
Legislating them from speaking won't lose them any followers anyway.
You're saying they're "valueless"? Believe me, they have their "values". You wanna let them express their "values"? Well, congratulations, you're a very "tolerant" person!
I personally am not tollerant to fascists, racists and such and would deny them the right of freedom of speech. Why? On the basis of what they have done in the past and because of the plans they have for the future.
I strongly believe in intolerance for the sake of democracy.
Last edited by movingwiththewind; 03-24-2010 at 05:48 PM..
You're saying they're "valueless"?
I personally am not tollerant to fascists, racists and such and would deny them the right of freedom of speech. Why? Because of what they have done in the past and because of the plans they have for the future.
The irony of this post is that by denying free speech to a fascist makes you yourself a fascist. The best way to deal with racists or others is to win an open debate, not by silencing them. The only limit i would put on freedom of speech is if you call for the direct harm to an individual or group, and even then you have to look at the context in which the comments are made.
What's interesting about the whole Ann Coulter/UofO debacle is that just last week there was "Israel Apartheid" week at the university as well as at other Canadian universities, and no letters were sent to any of the guest speakers. As far as I know there have never been any letters sent to any guest speakers regarding Canada's "freedom of speech" laws. And there have been many controversial speakers. Another interesting side story is that the woman who Ann Coulter directed the comment "take a camel" to (Fatima something) is a member of a facebook group that is calling for the destruction of Israel. Should she be silenced and/or kicked out of the country?
The irony of this post is that by denying free speech to a fascist makes you yourself a fascist. The best way to deal with racists or others is to win an open debate, not by silencing them. The only limit i would put on freedom of speech is if you call for the direct harm to an individual or group, and even then you have to look at the context in which the comments are made.
What's interesting about the whole Ann Coulter/UofO debacle is that just last week there was "Israel Apartheid" week at the university as well as at other Canadian universities, and no letters were sent to any of the guest speakers. As far as I know there have never been any letters sent to any guest speakers regarding Canada's "freedom of speech" laws. And there have been many controversial speakers. Another interesting side story is that the woman who Ann Coulter directed the comment "take a camel" to (Fatima something) is a member of a facebook group that is calling for the destruction of Israel. Should she be silenced and/or kicked out of the country?
I was literally going to type the exact same thing, verbatim, before I read your post. "I am all for free speech, unless it is x, y and z which I don't agree with because i think it's fascist, so then it should be banned." lol at the irony. Rep point to you.
Anyone can be tolerant of speech they like, where's the nobility in that? I believe it was the French philosopher Voltaire who said, "I may not agree with what you say, but i will fight for your right to say it." Sadly this is no longer the case in Canada.
The irony of this post is that by denying free speech to a fascist makes you yourself a fascist.
Sinik, what are you talking about? Have you just registered to city data forum to response to my post? How nice from you. I'm glad I earned your attention.
Sinik, I associate fascism with Hitler and the modern neo-nazi movement. Fascists were war criminals, but their movement is still alive.
I was literally going to type the exact same thing, verbatim, before I read your post. "I am all for free speech, unless it is x, y and z which I don't agree with because i think it's fascist, so then it should be banned."
Sonrise, First of all, I'm not for free speech for everybody (see the definition of "fascism" why). Secondly, if you want a definition of fascism, there are many sources to find it. (I posted a link in my previous post). Thirdly, yes, some people / organizations should be denied the right of free speech (see definition of "Facsism" in Wiki as an example of such organization.) And last but not least, I'm glad you agree with Sinik. You guys are great, especially when you work as a team. You even have same thoughts!
p.s. Can you, please, repeat what this famous French (you sure he was French?) philosopher said? I forgot. Thanks, and please don't worry about Canada. Canada will do fine, especially considering the fact it's so close to the US
Last edited by movingwiththewind; 03-24-2010 at 09:06 PM..
This is just sad. I don't remember these students being forced to attend the speech. Did I miss something? If you don't want to listen to her don't attend. Some Canadians are also anti-America, and I believe a significant number of them hates Ann Coulter because she is American. I don't listen to Ann, but I support the right to say whatever she wants. Likewise, I also have the right not to listen to her.
Canada has a selective application of its speech codes; you can say whatever you like about Israel, Jews, Christians and Whites. The moment you say anything about Muslims, Gays and other "protected" minority group, you can be fined and put through an kangaroo trial by an unelected "human rights commission". This commission is such a joke.
This is just sad. I don't remember these students being forced to attend the speech. Did I miss something? If you don't want to listen to her don't attend. Some Canadians are also anti-America, and I believe a significant number of them hates Ann Coulter because she is American. I don't listen to Ann, but I support the right to say whatever she wants. Likewise, I also have the right not to listen to her.
Canada has a selective application of its speech codes; you can say whatever you like about Israel, Jews, Christians and Whites. The moment you say anything about Muslims, Gays and other "protected" minority group, you can be fined and put through an kangaroo trial by an unelected "human rights commission". This commission is such a joke.
You're saying they're "valueless"? Believe me, they have their "values". You wanna let them express their "values"? Well, congratulations, you're a very "tolerant" person!
I personally am not tollerant to fascists, racists and such and would deny them the right of freedom of speech. Why? On the basis of what they have done in the past and because of the plans they have for the future.
I strongly believe in intolerance for the sake of democracy.
I called them valueless in response to you question "how much value do their teachings/philosophy have?"
Previous posters have summed up the flaws in your argument pretty well.
It all boils down to this: If we're going to deny freedom of speech to someone based on their beliefs, who gets to decide what's allowed and what's not?
I believe a significant number of them hates Ann Coulter because she is American.
Maybe a very small minority, but I would be really surprised if her citizenship was the main issue here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmnari
Canada has a selective application of its speech codes; you can say whatever you like about Israel, Jews, Christians and Whites.
I think a Holocaust denier would get a similar reception.
I agree with your other points though. Threatening a speaker with violence is deplorable.
Last edited by mikeinalberta; 03-24-2010 at 10:24 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rep point to you. 
