Topic: Swiss Ban Free Speech
started by: CatKnight
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 12 2002,21:26
switzerland just passed a law that says any anti-homosexuality speech is punishable by a jail sentence. meaning, if a priest at a private church says that homosexuality is wrong, and some gay guy just happened to go to that church with a tape recorder just out of spite, the priest would be sent to prison (and likely raped by homosexuals in the process). this is just a rediculous piece of legislation and will hopefully be vetoed (although I don't count on it). expect these whackos to come to the US next...
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 13 2002,00:33
It's retarded that legislation like this is neccessary.Fuck off, all of you bigots.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 13 2002,00:36
what! 
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 13 2002,01:51
What I -ment- to say...It is retarded that some people even need to think legislation like this is neccessary.
etc.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 13 2002,02:25
jeez you scared me for a second there. 
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 13 2002,12:30
It's nothing to worry about. European countries have been censoring and banning groups for centuries... what do you think inspired the First Amendment?Since I know you're going to bring up hate speech legislation, just remember that laws that infringe on the First Amendment are routinely thrown out by the Supreme Court... they like free speech so much that they even let you burn the flag!
Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,13:47
Ten years ago if you had said that some day it would be a law that 'hate' would be illegal, and that the murder of a minority or a gay person would be considered 'worse' than the murder of a straight peson or a white person, they would've been laughed at.Today we have 'Hate Crimes' laws, where crimes are 'more serious' if the victim is the member of a protected group.
Give it another ten years and the argument will be 'a preacher can't call gay people sinners because that's not protected by the First Amendment.'
Those who would want that kind of legislation here find the people who ignore their aim by saying 'it can't happen here' to be a great asset. It means there's little resistance. The only way it won't happen here is if it's fought tooth and nail.
And 'hate speech legislation' is a crock of shit. The First Amendment is based on the principle that the citizens have the inherent right to speak critically about any group, not just the groups on the 'approved to hate' list.
IOW, 'hate speech legislation' would make it illegal to say you hate gays or black people, but it would still be OK to say you hate straights or white people.
Posted by Jynx on Jun. 13 2002,17:46
Kuru's right, and here's a scary thought - with the advent of "hate crimes", the US has officially brought another one of Orwell's concepts to reality: thoughtcrime.Think about it, it will scare you.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 13 2002,18:16
the stupidest part of hate crimes laws is that if you're killing them, you're either doing it because you _hate_ them or because you're a sick fuck. Now if you _hate_ them enough to kill them, how can you hate them more? Well according to hate crimes laws it's possible. And if you're just a sick fuck, well you're probably an EO killer.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 13 2002,18:21
Judge: its a hate crime!Wolfguard: cant be. hate crimes come from hating one group of people more than another. I hate the entire human race as it stands right now. Therefore, its just murder.
Judge: But you killed a (insert minority here)
Wolfguard: If thats your point of view you must not see them as human and this has just become a case of animal abuse.
Yeah, i would defend myself against a charge of a hate crime
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 13 2002,18:45
can you provide a link to that law?i'd like to read it before i trash it.
but, from the way you've presented it...it does sound a bit disturbing.
as far as our own hate crime laws...kuru pretty much hit it on the head. murder is murder...i really don't see the relevance of a motive in performing a crime...i won't even go into 'insanity defense'.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,19:24
The hate crime law in the US or the one that CK referenced?There's currently a Bill in the Senate and a Resolution in the House regarding federal hate crimes that just lost a 'fast track' vote (Senate voted 56 - 43 in favor of fast tracking, fell short of the required 60 votes).
If passed it would be put to Pres. Bush to sign.
I heard about this one on the morning radio news... unfortunately don't have a link, but you might be able to search for it at www.house.gov
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 13 2002,19:45
sorry, i should have been more clear...i was asking about the swiss law.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 14 2002,00:30
| Quote (kuru @ 13 June 2002,11:24) |
| If passed it would be put to Pres. Bush to sign. |
And we all know he can't read, so -who knows- what would have happened?
Posted by rit on Jun. 14 2002,00:46
is that considered an intelligent response here?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,00:48
no.
Posted by editor on Jun. 14 2002,00:49
Do tell.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 14 2002,10:28
| Quote (rit @ 13 June 2002,16:46) |
| is that considered an intelligent response here? |
no, just the cold hard truth.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 14 2002,18:13
<mod hat on>At this time we would like to open the floor for comments pertinent to the topic that do not contain personal insults.
If you want to debate Pres. Bush's intelligence, start a thread for it. But remember that it's not open season for insults. If you call the guy a dumb motherfucker, you better have some proof.
<mod hat off>
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 14 2002,20:06
dsl you wouldn't know the truth if it fucked you in the ass
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 15 2002,01:07
The problem with attacks on the first amendment is the very small ones are pretty reasonable. Unfortunately they lay the foundation for the very critical ones.Obviously there's good reason why you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theatre (the classic example). And I think it's fair to say that slander and libel legistlation is not entirely without cause.
On the other hand, hate crime legislation is absurdity written into law, and worse it paves the way for even more disturbing regulation of speech and thought.
The idea of a true freedom of speech seems like it could justly be refined a little bit, but as soon as you let freedom of speech go even a little, you give ground that becomes the foundation for very serious infractions on free speech. This is one area where it seems even one exception is an exception too many.
Posted by j0eSmith on Jun. 17 2002,07:36
| Quote (CatKnight @ 12 June 2002,13:26) |
| and will hopefully be vetoed (although I don't count on it). |
I really wouldn't count on it. If I recall correctly, Switzerland is a true democracy, wherein a majority vote is the final say in anything.
I remember listening to CBC Radio at work one night, they were reporting on a Swiss town that had voted to allow current citizens choose which immigrants that'd been living there were allowed to become citizens themselves.
The Swiss government upheld the desicion saying: "To take the power away from the people even just once, is to take it away forever."
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 17 2002,10:35
| Quote (kuru @ 14 June 2002,10:13) |
| If you call the guy a dumb motherfucker, you better have some proof. |
George Learns About Global Warming.
He didn't buy it.
As for the Swiss, let's all remember that they happily helped out the Nazis in WWII. A country devoted to democracy and freedom, my ass...
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 17 2002,15:37
When asked what was his favorite book as a child, W responded "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" by Eric Carlisle. While a quality children's book, it was published shortly after W graduated from college.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 17 2002,19:40
I'm not surprised, given that Dubya still hasn't left childhood.Back on topic...
if the Republicans passed hate speech legislation about retards, then we wouldn't be able to talk shit about Georgie.
Something to consider!
Posted by editor on Jun. 17 2002,19:46
I still say he wouldn't be prez if his daddy wasn't...
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 17 2002,22:09
hey you can blurt out all the childish insults and meaningless conjecture you want, you just sperate yourselves that much further from reality.as for the EPA's so-called golbal warming study, I found out through some research that it is bunk. It was directly verbatim plageruized from another report, which was based on canadian data. the "proof" for global warming was based on computer models that were so shaky, that random guessing was more accurate. basically what they did was run the computer simulation over and over again until they got a random result that agreed with their theory, then published it. then the EPA stole it. bush didn't want to piss off the moderate democrats he is trying to please so he just played it off. if you want sources im me later when i get home from work.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 18 2002,14:47
| Quote |
| When asked what was his favorite book as a child, W responded "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" by Eric Carlisle. While a quality children's book, it was published shortly after W graduated from college. |
Cite?
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 19 2002,01:58
why is it that when people here want to attack so-called "liberal" issues, or just liberals in general, there are no requests for cites... but when we make a funny about Dubya, we get lectured about providing appropriate documentation?back on topic for a moment, while everyone is jumping up and down and ranting about the feared HATE SPEECH legislation... let's remember the big circle-jerk we had a few years ago about FLAG BURNING.
I burned one in my front yard the day it was banned by Congress. I wasn't worried a bit, because I knew damn well what would happen, and sure enough it did. A few months later, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.
If this legislation passes, guess what... the SAME THING WILL HAPPEN.
In the meantime, let me ask you what's worse - burning a piece of cloth, or inciting people to kill?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,03:04
| Quote |
| why is it that when people here want to attack so-called "liberal" issues, or just liberals in general, there are no requests for cites... but when we make a funny about Dubya, we get lectured about providing appropriate documentation? |
you answered your own question there, bubba. when we attack liberal issues, we are ranting about idiocy that happens in real life. you return in kind with ficticious banter against Bush's intelligence.
| Quote |
| If this legislation passes, guess what... the SAME THING WILL HAPPEN. |
if it happened in the US, I'm sure it would. we are, however, talking about switzerland.
| Quote |
| In the meantime, let me ask you what's worse - burning a piece of cloth, or inciting people to kill? |
burning a piece of cloth, if that cloth happens to be my bill of rights.
Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 19 2002,03:10
| Quote (CatKnight @ 14 June 2002,15:06) |
| dsl you wouldn't know the truth if it fucked you in the ass |
and you would know the truth if it was fucking you in the ass? speaking from experience?
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 19 2002,03:21
| Quote (Pravus Angelus @ 14 June 2002,19:07) |
| Obviously there's good reason why you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theatre (the classic example). |
Sorry about the long post, but I actually have something intelligent and valuable to add.
This and hate speech are based on two entirely different legal principles. I can't remember the precedent for the "fire in a theater" law, but hate speech is tested with the Brandenburg Test (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 393 US 948 1969).
An excerpt from my Regulation/Public Policy Freedom of Expression analysis:
The central issue surrounding this case involves freedom of speech, in this case by the Ku Klux Klan. The appellant in this case (Brandenburg) met with a group of persons at an isolated location to discuss and advocate their beliefs. Aside from Ku Klux Klan members, only two journalists from a Cincinnati television station witnessed the events. The taped footage reveals that Brandenburg made numerous racial and ethnic slurs, some of which indicated an intent for violence to be exhibited towards these groups.
Brandenburg was convicted for violating the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statue for “advocating…the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform” and for “voluntarily assembling with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.”
Brandenburg appealed the verdict, and the Ohio State Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, sua sponte, “for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.” The Ohio State Supreme Court did not file an opinion or explain its conclusions.
The United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, and held that “the mere abstract teaching…of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action.”
Therefore, a statute which fails to draw this distinction “impermissibly intrudes” upon the rights granted to individuals under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
This case is important because it does not allow states, or other law-making entities, to create and enforce laws that violate the rights granted to individuals by the United States Constitution. Furthermore, the court distinguishes a difference between “abstract teachings of violence” and the actual preparation of a group for violent action. The Court continues this decision by stating that any regulation of such type must draw this distinction clearly. Otherwise, mere advocacy and assemblage would be punishable under such vague regulation.
The gist of this is that hate speech, if truly spoken out of hatred, and even talk of violence against a person or group are protected by the US Constitution as long as the speaker does not actually advocate that the violence be carried out against the target of the hate speech. This is a very fine line, but an important distinction.
Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 19 2002,03:28
now on a serious note, bush's lack of intelligence is a common fact. same goes for gore. anyone who has seen their election campaigns and seen bush give speeches that haven't been rehearsed for weeks knows it's true. there is no need to present proof to the fact that bush lacks intelligence. and it's also common knowledge that without his dad he wouldn't even finish post secondary education, let alone become a president.on issues of free speech, i think they took it a step too far. it's one thing discouraging hate crimes, it's another thing denying people a freedom of expression and religion (refering to CK's example).
If CK’s example is true, then at least they value their laws enough to stand up against religious fanatics. religion should not be above the law, as it is in the states. isn't it in your laws that religion has to be separate from state? i haven't seen that in action, but i have seen a mayor officially "ban satan" from her town. not only did she cross that line, she also made it an official by-law. and if you want citing of where religion is above the law, take the fucking pedophile homosexual priests for example. and they are not exception, they are the majority. there is nothing that pisses me off then seeing these assholes get away with statutory rape and ruining little kid's lives. honestly, i am a somewhat religious person myself. what i don't believe in though is commercialization of church itself and all the religious holidays.
on the topic of hate crime, they are such a double standard. if a while person kills a black person it's a hate crime and murder. if a black person kills a white person it's self defense (or murder in a worst case).
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,04:24
| Quote (RadioActive @ 18 June 2002,22:10) |
| [quote=CatKnight,14 June 2002,15<!--emo&:0]dsl you wouldn't know the truth if it fucked you in the ass |
and you would know the truth if it was fucking you in the ass? speaking from experience?[/quote]
truth hurts!
beldurin--great find. that was exactly what I was getting at. There is a difference between shooting a gay guy because he's gay, and quoting the bible in church saying homosexuality is wrong. a difference between thought and action.
radioactive:
| Quote |
| now on a serious note, bush's lack of intelligence is a common fact. same goes for gore. anyone who has seen their election campaigns and seen bush give speeches that haven't been rehearsed for weeks knows it's true. there is no need to present proof to the fact that bush lacks intelligence. and it's also common knowledge that without his dad he wouldn't even finish post secondary education, let alone become a president. |
again you have nothing to base those accusations on. I would wager that Bush's 9/11 speech was the best presidential speech we've seen since kennedy. he wrote it himself and presented it the day after. he had no time to rehearse it. if you've ever watched any of bush's other speeches lately, such as the one in front of the german parliament, you would see that bush is an excellent political speaker. it is only the media, through blowing up of small stutters, that make it seem as if he is an idiot. i would rather have a president who stutters once in a while, to show that he is sincere, rather then a president who's speeches all come out as clearly as an actor's lines would (clinton).
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 19 2002,07:32
Because, being afluent is -wrong- boys and girls.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,08:20
i sure hope you were being sarcastic
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 19 2002,15:54
I don't stutter when I talk (usually, anyhow) and I'm sincere.Is this clear?
...
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 19 2002,18:27
| Quote (CatKnight @ 18 June 2002,22:24) |
| beldurin--great find. that was exactly what I was getting at. There is a difference between shooting a gay guy because he's gay, and quoting the bible in church saying homosexuality is wrong. a difference between thought and action. |
great find? Hell, I wrote that!
As for GW, it's true, he's said some pretty stupid things (strategery), but all-in-all, I think he's done a pretty good job so far. And I agree w/CK about the 9/11 speech. It r0x0red!
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 19 2002,18:42
| Quote (CatKnight @ 18 June 2002,23:24) |
| I would wager that Bush's 9/11 speech was the best presidential speech we've seen since kennedy. he wrote it himself and presented it the day after. |
I hear that.
I could of never given that speach.
In his shoes i would of started with.
<wolfguard pacing behind desk as camera comes on till the camera man tell him their on>
You little rat bastard fucknuggets. you better find a fucking hole because im coming for you. There is no place you can hide from me. Im coming to kill you, and anyone that gives you an ounce of help....
Me...calm? Dont think so
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,21:50
| Quote (TheTaxMan @ 19 June 2002,10:54) |
| I don't stutter when I talk (usually, anyhow) and I'm sincere. |
you aren't speaking in front of 5 billion people, however.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 19 2002,22:23
lol<wolfguard>
I'd love to go over there and kill you with my bare hands, but I'm going to stay here and design l33t battle droids instead. You have no chance to survive make your time.
</wolfguard>
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 19 2002,22:56
| Quote (CatKnight @ 19 June 2002,13:50) | ||
you aren't speaking in front of 5 billion people, however. |
What's that have to do with anything? We're talking about being afluent as opposed to stuttering (ie. you made some remark about a guy you don't like who spoke "too well" and I said it was bogus).
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,23:17
I don't understand the point you are making saying affluence is wrong. Nor do I recall you saying my statement was bogus previously.
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 19 2002,23:23
We are on different pages, just forget about it.
Posted by Beldurin on Jun. 20 2002,01:53
umm...you guys had me really confused there for a bit. Affluence refers to having money, not speaking well, folks.
Posted by Darth Liberus on Jun. 20 2002,03:33
the words you are looking for are eloquent and eloquence.eloquence can be used for good or evil. by itself, it implies nothing other than intelligence.
Posted by wix on Jun. 20 2002,07:27
| Quote (Beldurin @ 19 June 2002,10:27) |
| As for GW, it's true, he's said some pretty stupid things (strategery), but all-in-all, I think he's done a pretty good job so far. And I agree w/CK about the 9/11 speech. It r0x0red! |
Yah, his speech writer did a good job. His performance still sucked. On a side note there was a really interesting article in USA Today, umm, yesterday maybe about the Bush election strategy: steel tariffs, buying 285 million bucks off offshore oil contracts in Florida (ex, he’s targeting key swing states). It’s never been Bush’s strong point of intelligence to do the job well himself, but he has the right people working for him, and he knows how to listen.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 20 2002,14:18
| Quote (Darth Liberus @ 19 June 2002,17:23) |
| lol <wolfguard> I'd love to go over there and kill you with my bare hands, but I'm going to stay here and design l33t battle droids instead. You have no chance to survive make your time. </wolfguard> |
ever see "Screamers"