Free Speech or Illegal Speech?

[hotShot]

Europe has been a place of ethnic and religious wars for centuries.

Verbal attacks, riots have been first steps on this way.

So may be we Europeans are more thin-skinned about them.

[blackshoe]

This somewhat reminds me of something I read from a German who witnessed the Nazis in action. "First they came for the unionists, but I wasn't a unionist so I did not complain." (Or something along those lines.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[Winstonm]

Thanks - found it.

 

Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote the following, famous poem about the Holocaust:

 

First they came for the Socialists,

and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists,

and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

[TimG]

The Thai approach.

[PassedOut]

The Vatican repudiated the statements of the holocaust denying bishop that the Pope un-excommunicated a few days ago: Vatican: Comments by Holocaust Denier Unacceptable

 

The Vatican said Monday that comments by a recently rehabilitated bishop that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust were unacceptable and violate Church teaching.

 

In a front-page article, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reaffirmed that Pope Benedict XVI deplored all forms of anti-Semitism and that all Roman Catholics must do the same.

I suppose Bishop Williamson will now recant.

[luke warm]

I suppose Bishop Williamson will now recant.

he will if he knows what's good for him ;)

[Lobowolf]

For Christmas last year, or maybe New Years, a guy who was hoping to become the chair of the National Republican Committee sent friends a CD with a rendition of Barack the Magic Negro, done to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. No one suggested prosecution, although it did not do his bid for the chairmanship any good.

I wonder how many people who discussed that situation are aware that the "Magic Negro" is and has been an actual term of film criticism (see, e.g. John Coffey in The Green Mile).

 

Of course, I also wonder if the politician who did it knew that, too.

[kenberg]

For Christmas last year, or maybe New Years, a guy who was hoping to become the chair of the National Republican Committee sent friends a CD with a rendition of Barack the Magic Negro, done to the tune of Puff the Magic Dragon. No one suggested prosecution, although it did not do his bid for the chairmanship any good.

I wonder how many people who discussed that situation are aware that the "Magic Negro" is and has been an actual term of film criticism (see, e.g. John Coffey in The Green Mile).

 

Of course, I also wonder if the politician who did it knew that, too.

The spoof was not cruel. Obama laughed it off. but as an act of political stupidity it ranks high.

[Lobowolf]

as an act of political stupidity it ranks high.

That might be the biggest underbid I've seen in any thread on the Forums.

[Trinidad]

Does the US laws on free speech include:

 

- to abet someone to commit a murder

- to abet someone to intentionally hurt/injure someone

- to abet someone to to steal or destroy someones property

- to abet someone to discriminate someone because of his race, religion or ....

 

Because this kind of speech is illegal in most European counties.

European constitutions value the protection of a persons dignity and health over the free speech of others.

I have no personal experience, but from what has been written thus far it appears to me some European countries extrapolate in law creation - meaning that in the U.S. one cannot actively encourage the commiting of a crime, but voicing an opinion is not considered encouraging a crime. In Europe it appears to me that it could be extrapolated that the voicing of the opinion could cause someone else to be encouraged to commit a crime.

 

To me, that type of thinking is actually more dangerous - it grants the ruling parties the authority to suppress dissent by labeling it "hate".

Part of the problem is that Mr. Wilders is claiming that he is voicing an opinion. If that would be true, people might get irritated, people will disagree with his opinion or whatever. But many people strongly believe that he is doing more than just voicing an opinion.

 

If Mr. Wilders is saying the following sentence to his followers: "These people need to leave the country. And if they don't leave the nice way, we will have to do it the tough way.", there is no doubt to any of his followers who 'we' are and what the 'tough way' looks like.

 

But when asked, Mr. Wilders puts on his innocent face and says that in his opinion, 'we' are the members of parliament who should pass legislature that if these people don't leave by voluntarily, the police can pick them up and push them over the border. That would indeed only be a political opinion.

 

And, as you may understand, "These people" refers to Muslims. But Mr. Wilders never says: "Muslims need to leave the country." His actual wording is something along the line of: "Islam is a fascist ideology, an ideology that encourages violence against infidels. It is immoral, it leads to criminal behavior. We can all see that. The numbers show how crime rate increases while Islam is expanding in our country (1). These people..."

 

(1) This is not true, crime has actually decreased over the past 20 years. But lying during a speech is not against the law. And Mr. Wilders doesn't let the facts stand in the way of his political ambitions.

 

While talking, Mr. Wilders (on purpose) doesn't make it clear who "these people" are. But do you think he is talking about criminals, about Muslims or about criminal Muslims? And more importantly, what do you think the audience thinks he means?

 

When asked officially, Mr. Wilders will then say that he doesn't have anything against Muslims at all, only against criminal Muslims, just like criminal non-Muslims. But in his next speech, again Mr Wilders will not make it clear whether he is talking about criminals or Muslims.

 

This is not a case of just someone having a strong political opinion. This is a case where someone is inciting hatred and calling for violence over and over again, but always with a small escape line so that he can deny that he intended to call for violence.

 

Logically, there are only two possibilities.

 

A) Mr Wilders is continuously making the same mistake of not clearly stating his non violent intentions on every occasion where he speaks to a crowd. By now, that amounts to such a large pile of mistakes that that is highly unlikely.

 

B) Mr. Wilders actually does have the intension to call for violence.

 

But while you are reading this, please realize that all that I wrote is just a political opinion. It should definitely not be construed as a call on the legal system to get Mr. Wilders convicted of inciting hatred, calling for violence in his speeches and aaaaaallllll the other despicable things that he is on trial for.

 

Rik

[PassedOut]

I suppose Bishop Williamson will now recant.

he will if he knows what's good for him :angry:

You are so right: Pope On Holocaust Denier: "I Messed Up"

 

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement.

And right back to hell with him!

[Winstonm]

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

 

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

[luke warm]

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

 

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

[hotShot]

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

The pope is by definition only infallible in matters of faith/ religion.

He is therefore fallible in recognizing antisemitic people.

[Winstonm]

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

 

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

It is also the argument against a President who has sole authority in declaring who is or is not an illegal enemy combattant.

[jdonn]

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

 

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

It is also the argument against a President who has sole authority in declaring who is or is not an illegal enemy combattant.

As well as issuing pardons?

[Winstonm]

The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson's denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement

 

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

It is also the argument against a President who has sole authority in declaring who is or is not an illegal enemy combattant.

As well as issuing pardons?

No. The effect of a declaration by the president of an enemy combattant bypasses and negates the rule of law - if a country is ruled by its laws it means that the same laws apply equally to everyone. EC allows the president to either A) utitlize normal federal courts or B) utilize the military and military commisions for the same acts - in the case of Jose Padilla, the same person.

 

Everyone has the possibility to be pardoned.

[jdonn]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

[jtfanclub]

That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible.

and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended

The pope is by definition only infallible in matters of faith/ religion.

He is therefore fallible in recognizing antisemitic people.

Not even then. The Pope is only infallible when he's ex cathedra, which in effect means that he's infallible when he says he's infallible. If he misreads a line in the Bible, the Bible doesn't have to be changed.

 

From Wiki:

 

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

 

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and

Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

[Winstonm]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

 

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

 

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

Yes, I agree. But as presidential pardons are an integral part of the checks and balances of our form of government, they do not create the violation of being a nation of laws (not to the degree, anyway, as the Military Commisions Act)

 

To wit:

 

Person "A" is suspected of an act of terrorism, which is a federal crime. Legal structure dictates that a federal crime be prosecuted in federal court - that means it applies equally to all persons suspected of terrorism.

 

Person "B" is suspected or an act of terrorism, but the President declares him an enemy combattant and sends him to a military brig with no rights.

 

MCA allows persons "A" and "B" to get different treatment for the same crime. This puts the Executive into the role as monarch, above the law.

 

My point is that the flaw in the monarchial model is fallibility.

[jdonn]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

 

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

 

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

Yes, I agree.

I hope you will not be insulted that I stopped reading at this point. ;)

[jtfanclub]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

If a person is guilty of a crime, and everybody knows it, and there's a mountain of evidence, and the person even admits they're guilty, they will still be found not guilty if the system failed them (for example, breaking down their door and searching their property without a warrant).

 

The fact that the President may screw up is not a reason to disallow pardons, any more than the fact that the police may screw up is not a reason to allow warrantless searches. It's part of the system that sometimes, guilty men go free so that innocent men will not be punished.

 

The reverse is not true- the President (and the Courts) should not be allowed to punish people because they might be guilty.

[jdonn]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

If a person is guilty of a crime, and everybody knows it, and there's a mountain of evidence, and the person even admits they're guilty, they will still be found not guilty if the system failed them (for example, breaking down their door and searching their property without a warrant).

 

The fact that the President may screw up is not a reason to disallow pardons, any more than the fact that the police may screw up is not a reason to allow warrantless searches. It's part of the system that sometimes, guilty men go free so that innocent men will not be punished.

 

The reverse is not true- the President (and the Courts) should not be allowed to punish people because they might be guilty.

JT, do you understand the difference between "a reason" (or similarly "an argument") and "irrefutable proof"?

 

Seriously, what is your point, that since some guilty people go free it is irrelevant that more guilty people go free?

 

Btw, the fact the police screw up IS a reason to allow warrantless searches (more specifically, the fact that some guilty people get away due to warrantless searches being illegal is a reason to make them legal.) That doesn't mean I agree that warrantless searches should be legal.

[Winstonm]

My head hurts now. I don't understand the point of anything you just said. I'll repeat it for clarity.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

I am saying "should". I understand that it's legal, which is of course different.

Josh,

 

I believe the two issues in the sense discussed are inseperable - fallibility and legal ramifications.

 

Legal structure is what eliminates the arbitrary nature of fallibility.

 

Isn't "Everyone's fallible" a good argument that the president should not have the unchecked right to issue pardons?

 

Yes, I agree.

I hope you will not be insulted that I stopped reading at this point. :P

ROFLOL

[Lobowolf]

Btw, the fact the police screw up IS a reason to allow warrantless searches (more specifically, the fact that some guilty people get away due to warrantless searches being illegal is a reason to make them legal.)

Such a good reason, in fact, that they're NOT inherently illegal; there are numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement.