OT: For all the genocidal dictators...

[Puke]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
What is going on? did Geo simply ruin our fun debate by reverting to simple swearing? has someone got smutty? what is going on?

i mentioned liberachi. sorry.

[geoschmo]

Maybe there were too many refereances to "kiddie porn" and the european "free speech preventor" engine kicked in and is stopping him from viewing the thread.

Anyway, I copied and pasted what he missed in an email and sent it to him. I hope I didn't get him put on some "list" by doing that.

Geoschmo

[Growltigga]

It's shame you can't read the current Posts, although with the lack of ability you have shown for staying on topic, perhaps it doesn't really matter that much.

I am pleased I cannot reach the current Posts because my symantec anti-corruption software has blocked it. As this is written by Americans for Americans, I can only assume that you were discussing matters so heinous and disgusting that it really is not fit for public consumption..

As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.

Yeah, no subjective underpinnings in that statment 'eh?

I dont disagree with your statements. We are actually getting on emotive ground (not necessarily for either you or me) here.

There is a very interesting argument here about the 'preconceptions' the average european say developed in the 1950's and 1960's about America, given its obvious strength as a world superpower and the cold war etc. The base discussions that were run (I am recalling my policitics, legal anthropology and public international law courses I did at University) were all on the premis of how world perception of America has changed as the cold war ended, Russia de-hegemonised and the global economy of europe and pacific-rim countries gained in strength. That change of opinion is still ongoing and unfortunately, my personal experience is that it is going somewhat southward

I seriously doubt anyone in this country is suffering from that

I think you are right, now. I dont think the same can be said of quite a few people (senior politicians and otherwise) in the past.

On a side note but related, the subject matter in the "OT I am proud to be an American" thread is a bit disturbing...

do you suppose I would care what the American Bar Association believes on the subject?

No, I dont suppose you would but the interesting point here from my perspective is that I am only reiterating arguments which your countries' own major professional association for legal services have raised.

In your case, as you disdain lawyers, you probably could not give a monkey's danglers for what they say... I just think it is amusing how their arguments reflect are own. The document will be with you shortly.

As for the beer, if I am ever in Dayton, I will join in a glass of expensive imported european/antipodean/central american or south african beer

[ July 19, 2002, 11:32: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
As for staying on topic, absolute rhubarb, what is obviously confusing you Geo is the natural progression discussions take, and the way any debating of competing viewpoints will evolve. I shall ask you to keep your left field comments to yourself.

I suppose you could see it that way. Of course the "progression" could also be interpreted as the fact that you were totally overwhelmed by my logic and could no longer defend your original supposition, ie. that the website in question is not protected by the first amendment, and instead chose to switch to a more acedemic, and thus easier to defend position about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. If you could explain to me how the one relates to the other except in a purely ancillary way, I would be happy to concede the point. If not I suppose I will claim victory on the first debate as you have consistantly refused to return to it, and we can continue our discourse on the second.

Geo

[Growltigga]

Geo, I suppose you could argue this but only as a particularily poor attempt to refute my argument. I am no more overwhelmed by your logic than I have been overwhelmed by my wife's choice of buying "quilted" toiletpaper.

You must remember not to feel like you are sapiens imprimus just because you are a computer nerd who has grappled a couple of blarts in his time

The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment. I did not raise any question as to whether or not this is the case but chose to base my refutio on questioning whether or not the fact that the first amendment applies affects the outcome from a public policy perspective, and also employed the comparative position under most civil law european legislative systems. That is not an academic supposition, but more a question of application of the relevant national legal systems to your premis.

Since then, we have bandied about various suppositions, the most interesting of which frankly was Puke's confession as to watching to many, ahem, indiscreet movies.

We have still not reached a conclusion about whether or not Americans do in fact enjoy the freedom of speech that they assume to enjoy. You simply claim they do, I claim that the current state of legal thought is that they do not.

On a side note, I recently (this morning) came across a recent UK case which does go to emphasise the fundamentally differing viewpoints between us English and you Americans.

The situation was that one of our public libraries operated 'an internet cafe'. The PC's each had a filter that prohibited access to adult or inappropriate sites. A UK-resident American took the local council to court on the basis that the filter breached her right to freedom of speech and her lawyer quoted recent American cases where this had been the case and the relevant court had oveturned a converse earloier ruling. The English court through this out of court on the basis that anyone is entitled to restrict access on pure public policy issues, and that the claimant would need to show that they had been materially prejudiced by the relevant restriction. The American Bar Associaiton on reporting on this case support the UK view, not the US

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
The initial argument was not quite what you suggest. My opening position on this matter was (and I still hold) that a subject such as genocide is not appropriate material for any kind of game or as the basis for a 'joke' web-site.

You then stated that this was perfectly acceptable under the first amendment.

Please note that I made no attempt at a qualitative judgment of this type. I would never assert that sicko humor was "acceptable", "unacceptable", "appropriate", or "inappropriate". These arguments are too subjective and require too much in the way of presuposition on the part of the participants to be suitable for an open debate such as this. My initial point was merely to whether or not it was "permissable" under the principle of free speech. If you ask me whether I think it appropriate, I would agree with you in most cases, as I consider myself a man of decent moral fiber. However, in the specific case of this website I may question that as I have taken the time to review it (the site) more completely since we began our discussion, and I feel now we may have been to harsh in our initial criticism of it.

If this is to be a debate strictly on a legal basis, on whether or not a court (US or UK) could be convinced that this website is not protected under the principle of freedom of speech, then I shall have to conceed you have an advantage on me. However, I will point out that "the law" as you no doubt are aware is constantly shifting sand with which to build a foundation. Many priciples thought immutable by previous generations now are "re-evaluated". You may make an assertion that were a case to come to court today over this issue, your position could be victorius, but that would not make it "right". I conceed this is an idealistic perspective from which to base an argument on my part, but I was suffering from the delusion that ideals were what this discussion was about.

I do find it interesting though that when you make various aside arguments it is permissable under the "progression" of the discussion. But when I attempt to do so, or even redirect your aside back to the previuos point at hand, I am in "left field".

Geo

[Growltigga]

Please note that I made no attempt at a qualitative judgment of this type.

You are quite right. If you had made any qualitative judgement in support of the content of said website, I suspect our debate would be substantially more heated. I am also glad that you are a man of moral fiber (and 2 notches on the headboard to boot!!) as this makes debating with you far more fun than if you were a man of straw with the morals of an alley-kat

My initial point was merely to whether or not it was "permissable" under the principle of free speech.

Exactly, you started this debate on this propostion which takes us back to the prime subject matter of our discussion being, inter alios and summarised, 'do American citizens actually enjoy the level of freedom of speech they think they do?" This is what we are still debating.

With regard to the locii of our discussions, I would point out that primary brake on any application of "fundamental" civil rights of any society is how the legislative body of that society applies them through the relevant judgement-making apparatus. In both our countries, that is left to the courts. Our debate therefore must focus to a greater extent on how the courts seek to restrict freedom of speech and I have sought to provide you with some examples for your own education.

You are right about the changing nature of legal systems. However, laws do not change (or even evolve) that rapidly and therefore, it is a safe basis for a foundation for my position. I will concede that my position today may not be the same as my position in 10 years.

I seek to exapnd and progress this discussion by various related side arguments because I am a highly trained and highly intelligent legal professional and I am, of course, seeking to make these arguements in order to guide you to a rational and balanced consensus. You must remember this and also remember that when you make similar (although not so well constructed or profound) side arguments, it is because you are desparate and are "throwing teddy bears out of pram"

[ July 19, 2002, 16:47: Message edited by: Growltigga ]