[Winstonm]

Quote

I think we should beat up all plaid skinned beings!

"I think" means voicing an opinion.

Quote

Those plaid skins cannot have earned their property in a legal way, let's take it away from them.

There is more difficult, but it seems to me the qualifying phrase is a subjective statement (Those plaid skins cannot have earned their property in a legal way) and thus the entire statement falls to me under opinion.

Also note that how and where statements are made is also relevant IMO. If I write an article for the newspaper that states a certain group is subhuman that is much different than standing beside someone and yelling in his ear an ecouragement to do violence.

This discussion can get rather academic and I am not saying what Europe does is necessarily wrong but trying to point out how very different it is in concept to the ideas in the U.S. It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to do what is right.

[qwery_hi]

The right to free speech is under attack in the US too, as cases like this -
http://www.cbldf.org...es/000372.shtml show.

OTOH, in some European countries, you can be jailed for denying that the holocaust occurred.

No sex or No violence - take your pick

[hotShot]

Winstonm, on Jan 26 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.
The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.
My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

[mike777]

hotShot, on Jan 25 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 26 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.
The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.
My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

I think that is a fair observation.

You might want to even add that if you are a public person or in this case a public religion or book there is almost no legal recourse.

[Winstonm]

hotShot, on Jan 25 2009, 06:15 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 26 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

It seems to me in the U.S. the rights of the individual are held in higher regard than the rights of the society as a whole - and it also seems we trust our governments less to so what is right.

I think the difference is which individual is protected, the agitator or his victims.
The laws we discuss here deal with attacks against ethnic or religious minority groups.
My impression is that the agitators right of free speech has a higher value in the US, than his victims right not to be subject of insults, slur or threats of violence.

That is certainly one way of viewing it. I actually believe the differences in the U.S. comes from a basic mistrust of government that was inherent in the Founding Fathers and was built into the U.S. Constitution.

Keep in mind that if you grant your government the power to silence critics, there is no way to stop them if you become their critic.

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.)

I certainly am with you that it appears there is a basic difference in how these two concepts are viewed - and as long as both work that is what matters.

[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]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

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....rst_they_came...

[Winstonm]

Thanks - found it.

Quote

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

Quote

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]

PassedOut, on Jan 26 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

I suppose Bishop Williamson will now recant.

he will if he knows what's good for him

[Lobowolf]

kenberg, on Jan 25 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

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]

Lobowolf, on Jan 26 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

kenberg, on Jan 25 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

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]

kenberg, on Jan 26 2009, 09:14 PM, said:

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]

Winstonm, on Jan 25 2009, 01:59 PM, said:

hotShot, on Jan 25 2009, 01:48 PM, said:

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.

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]

luke warm, on Jan 26 2009, 06:17 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Jan 26 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

I suppose Bishop Williamson will now recant.

he will if he knows what's good for him

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

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Quote

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]

[quote name='luke warm' date='Feb 5 2009, 04:37 PM'] That's O.K., Pope. After all, everyone's fallible. [/QUOTE]
and that's the very basic reason why any religion that says that a leader is infallible cannot be defended [/quote]
The pope is by definition only infallible in matters of faith/ religion.
He is therefore fallible in recognizing antisemitic people.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:37 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 4 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Quote

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.