Freedom of speech

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This list must really sadden you>>

The National Health Service 1948

The Emancipation of blacks in the US

Votes for women

Votes for people who don't own property

Disabled access ways

The banning of domestic violence

Banning of dog fighting

etc, etc etc it's a gradually emerging kinder world and it's unstoppable and the hatemongers are swimming up stream and will be bitter losers for the rest of their lives.

Heck, Catalonia has just banned bull fighting !

I know there are millions of Americans who deplore changes like this and wish it was 1859 or even 1783. The hate speech supporters are part of this group.

so what you're saying is we should trade one form of discrimination for another?

Except this type of discrimination is far worse. This type of discrimination has to do with the way people ultimately think.

You can have 'equal rights' for all. That's fine and dandy. The moment you take away the 'thought/voice' of all though is where you start marching into dark territory.

[Heracles 417]

anti hate laws are meant to prevent violence

People who countenance hate speech are acceptive of the inevitable violence that will come from one party or the other

Free hate speech doesn't prevent the murder of abortion doctors, it incites it.

Nobody will tell me whether the level of free speech in Australia - Sweden - England - Germany - France is at such a low level that living there would be intolerable for an American due to that factor alone.

Of course it wouldn't

The US is stuck in 1776 with the ideas and values of 1776 and it can't claw it's way out and move forward.

The perception and notion of Freedom here differs to that of everyone else in the first world. And I mean everyone. Most of us with a foreign education grasp the actual and rational notion of freedom of speech. As in, freedom to voice one's political views.

Over here it has been bastardized and turned into freedom to say or do whatever one pleases, regardless of consequences for others. The irony is that you are free to say or do whatever you want but the receiver is forced to accept it. As you pointed out, if I was to disturb people just because I thought it was funny, I would be arrested. If I was to be racist or deliberately derogatory against a group, I would be charged, as this is an offense in AUS.

The other ingenious rule is that when it comes to the first amendment, you can do whatever you want on your private property. Since, one can rule out the fist amendment on their property, surely I can also do the same with other amendments.

Freedom abroad refers to freedom to not have to put up with the ####### or consequences of the actions [choices] of someone else. Not over here, only the perpetrator has the freedom, the rest just have to deal with it. The other interesting version of freedom here is protecting the rights of criminals and organized crime, yet the victim having little to no freedom from it period.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

There is something wrong if violent action results from it "inciting a riot". The old example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is commonly used that would result in the Speaker being arrested.

As I said earlier, there's a difference in 'hate speech' an speech that is deliberately intended to harm another or speech that is blatant to cause a panic, etc.

If you have an opinion of "all white people suck and should not be here" - then that's your perogative to have that idea and to display that publicly.

As far as the argument of soldiers goes. While I'll agree it's dispicable to yell at their funerals, that is a right as well and is very much protected under the first amendment. As soldiers are government employees, they are very much under the guise of words against them being political speech... whether alive, or dead...

[slim 1,525]

protecting the rights of criminals and organized crime, yet the victim having little to no freedom from it period.

Here in the midwest, we're allowed to protect ourselves from criminals.

[Heracles 417]

Here in the midwest, we're allowed to protect ourselves from criminals.

Too bad Cincinnati, a city of 350K, has 18 times Australia's homicide rate per capita.

Cleveland has nearly 20 times the rate. Yep awesome freedom.

I was too busy look at the US in other discussion, when I really just needed to look at your state.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,525]

Too bad Cincinnati, a city of 350K, has 18 times Australia's homicide rate.

The greater Cincinnati area has about 2.1 million people (or 10% of AUS total population for the WHOLE COUNTRY.) So when you factor in our "high" rate of homicides... it's still relatively low to the point of being irrelavent to the average person, same as in AUS.

You keep making this argument that we have "such a high rate" of homicides here in the US, yet the number is so low the average person's daily life is unaffected by it. How is that any different than AUS? How does that make us any "less safe?"

[Heracles 417]

The greater Cincinnati area has about 2.1 million people (or 10% of AUS total population for the WHOLE COUNTRY.) So when you factor in our "high" rate of homicides... it's still relatively low to the point of being irrelavent to the average person, same as in AUS.

You keep making this argument that we have "such a high rate" of homicides here in the US, yet the number is so low the average person's daily life is unaffected by it. How is that any different than AUS? How does that make us any "less safe?"

Facts and data interpretation was not part of any military training was it?

Once again, you are switching points, are now ignoring per capita and also ignoring that guns do not make a society safer. In fact, all of the data suggests the total opposite. You said guns make the mid-west safer, crime data suggests otherwise - the opposite.

Actually, considering the chance of being a victim of crime or shot dead is quite high, the average person's life is affected greatly. To the contrary, there are no such things as no go zones in Australian cities. Not even in Sydney, a city of 4.5 million. Which means someone residing in Sydney has the freedom to go wherever they want and not be shot dead. The total opposite is the case in Cincinnati or Cleveland.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,525]

the average person's life is affected greatly, considering the change of being a victim of crime or shot dead is quite high.

Really?

So less than 1% of 1% is "quite high?"

And you wonder why I ignore some of your arguments.

[Heracles 417]

Really?

So less than 1% of 1% is "quite high?"

And you wonder why I ignore some of your arguments.

While 18 to 20 times higher might be insignificant to you, it sure as hell is significant to those murdered, as well as their families.

Another mid-western city,[st. Louis] has a rate of 39 times that of AUS. I am guessing in your opinion this too is insignificant.

Denying something does nothing to change reality.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,525]

While 18 to 20 times higher might be insignificant to you, it sure as hell is significant to those murdered, as well as their families.

Another mid-western city,[st. Louis] has a rate of 39 times that of AUS. I am guessing in your opinion this too is insignificant.

Denying something does nothing to change reality.

I've also lived in the St. Louis metro area for a few years. Didn't affect my daily life one bit.

I guess your point is that somewhere, somehow, the fact that people are murdered is important. I guess that would ring true in AUS too, wouldn't it? Or is it just "less important" because there's less of an "impact" on less people?

[Captain Oates 911]

As I said earlier, there's a difference in 'hate speech' an speech that is deliberately intended to harm another or speech that is blatant to cause a panic, etc.

If you have an opinion of "all white people suck and should not be here" - then that's your perogative to have that idea and to display that publicly.

As far as the argument of soldiers goes. While I'll agree it's dispicable to yell at their funerals, that is a right as well and is very much protected under the first amendment. As soldiers are government employees, they are very much under the guise of words against them being political speech... whether alive, or dead...

I think this is very typical of natural born American thinking (or Texas perhaps). Just because Americans speak English, many Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security that they are 'like us'.

Any European reading the above would say eh ? It's outside their cultural and moral framework.

In the US the constitution comes first. In England 'we the people' come first. How ironic.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

In the US the constitution comes first. In England 'we the people' come first. How ironic.

that must explain all those cameras on the corners.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think this is very typical of natural born American thinking (or Texas perhaps). Just because Americans speak English, many Europeans are lulled into a false sense of security that they are 'like us'.

Any European reading the above would say eh ? It's outside their cultural and moral framework.

In the US the constitution comes first. In England 'we the people' come first. How ironic.

Majority rule is a dangerous precedent and why we aren't a true democracy.

[Captain Oates 911]

that must explain all those cameras on the corners.

spot on Charles. The 'other' countries put their safety ahead of some theoretical freedom which in reality is freedom for criminals to commit street robbery without being filmed.

This encapsulates the whole discussion and highlights the difference in mindset between the two countries

Now would you rather walk along a back steet in Ilkley or Milwaukee at midnight tonight ?

An American can only be faithful to the constitution if he remains alive.

Edited August 18, 2010 by saywhat

[Obama 2012 1,714]

spot on Charles. The 'other' countries put their safety ahead of some theoretical freedom which in reality is freedom for criminals to commit street robbery without being filmed.

This encapsulates the whole discussion and highlights the difference in mindset between the two countries

Now would you rather walk along a back steet in Ilkley or Milwaukee at midnight tonight ?

An American can only be faithful to the constitution if he remains alive.

Wow, you really have been brainwashed haven't you? Your home government must be so proud!

Actually, I don't walk down the street at night in fear. Because despite media rhetoric, MOST streets in America are safe to walk down at night.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa