OT: For all the genocidal dictators...

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Puke:
wow, ease up guys. lets not get angry with each other about dancing styles, sports brawls, and income brackets. i cant dance, im unsporting, and i make more money than i deserve. go ahead and get mad at me for it, both of you.

Puke, I have no objection to anyone making as much money as they can. Like every other person I aspire to be horribly overpaid someday. Although lord willing it won't be as a member of the "second oldest profession". I enjoy sleep too much.

Geo

[Baron Munchausen]

Ah, todays explosive topic is Freedom of Speech, is it?

First of all, Gt, I was not 'offended' by your sig but simply pointing out that the principle you advocated could be turned against yourself. 'Freedom of Speech' is a legal principle and thus has to be applied equally to all. If advocating the death of many, even in jest, is not allowed, then advocating the death of a few, even in jest, is not allowed either. Else, we are placing the judge(s) or jury into the position of using sorites to resolve a case. If 20 people is not enough to violate the 'limit' on freedom of speech, is 25? If not 25, then 30? Etc... It's the old puzzle of where 'quantity' and 'quality' change hands. Because the act/event advocated in both your sig and that 'awful' website are the same. It's just a difference of scale.

And that's why the principle of Freedom of Speech has caused so much controversy. In order to preserve all reasonable speech from unreasonable application of the law we all have to put up with things we don't like. Anything that is judged 'out of the bounds of decency' will be twisted around to apply to something else. It's one of those 'cynical maxims' -- Any available power will be used by goverment, for whatever purpose it can be used for not just the 'original intent'.

This is what concerns people with the new 'anti-terrorism' laws here in the US. Anything that an FBI agent gets offended at could be defined as terrorism now, anyONE that some FBI agent wants to investigate could be defined as a terrorist and have his/her rights stripped away for nothing more than being 'suspicious looking' on some vague personal criteria. Speaking out against the 'War on Terrorism' is definitely offensive to many people here right now. While it probably gets you added to The List of people to be watched and investigated, it doesn't get you arrested automatically -- yet. If it were possible to legally define 'offensive speech' then it probably would. I mean, anyone who thinks we shouldn't go and blow up the terrorists is obviously saying that we should just put up with the thousands of deaths inflicted by them. That's just obscene! The fact that dropping bombs is rather messy and inexact, killing more civilians than terrorists, doesn't seem to matter to these same people who are terribly offended at 'terrorism'.

And, btw, we've got a political advocacy group for sex with children here in the US. It's called NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). One of the priests accused in the current scandal has been a member for decades. I'll admit that it's pretty sick, and obvious to me that anyone who could advocate making sex with children 'normal' was abused him/her self, but the same logic that would suppress talking about this can be used to suppress almost anything else. You don't think we should put pot smokers in prison for 20 years to life? You're a degenerate and a threat to society! In the slammer you go with those evil pot smokers!!! It would be interesting to know if NAMBLA members are watched by the porn squad, though... and if their public advocacy is allowed to be used to get warrants on them. hmm.

But anyway, if offensive jokes are ruled out, we wargamers are gonna be next. Remember that next time you play your PBW turn.

[ July 15, 2002, 18:57: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[TerranC]

Now, all you kids that ever wondered why the US broke away from the UK, just take a look at this discussion, and you will find out why... to some extent.



This is better than crossfire.

[capnq]

The simple fact is that the internet has been the catalyst for the rapid expansion of every sort of crime into the global problem they are becoming today.

Crime has been a global problem for a lot longer than the Internet has existed. Computers merely speed up the transactions, and enable a few new ones.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by TerranC:
Now, all you kids that ever wondered why the US broke away from the UK, just take a look at this discussion, and you will find out why... to some extent.



This is better than crossfire.

Personally Tc, I am more partial to the McLaughlin Group...

"Issue 2 today, why are all Canadians pedophiles? Jack Germonde?"

"Well John, first of all, I don't think that's a fair statement because..."

"WRONG! Issue 3..."

[TerranC]

Whew... oh man. That is good.

Now, seriously; to all that have posted here, LET IT DIE! BASH IT TO THE GROUND AND WHACK IT since the use of free speech is an issue that nobody will win and will be debated and discussed till the end of civilization.

It's not an easy issue, since every blade has two sides.

And, if they wanted to make that fun, they should have named it "Who can get carpal tunnel syndrome the fastest project".

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
'Freedom of Speech' is a legal principle and thus has to be applied equally to all.

I feel I must point out here that this is another cherished principle that if in fact were true in the real world, would result in Gt and his associates being significantly less in demand, and thus quite a bit less highly renumerated for their services.

Unfortunately law has very little to do with what is right, and much more to do with what you can prove or how well you state your case.

This seeming lack of fundamental principles in defense of those very principles is likely what results in the less than positive opinion people outside of the field hold for those within it.

But all in all, if I were on trial for my life I'd rather have a lawyer than a man of principle working for me. It's a shame though that those are often mutually exclusive.

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2002, 19:52: Message edited by: geoschmo ]