OT: For all the genocidal dictators...

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Freedom of Speech does not permit you to violate both public policy principals and public morality.

Freedom of Speech does not allow me to stand on my soapbox and advocate genocide, rape, abuse, child pornography or a whole host of other issues. Freedom of Speech should not allow stupid bloody websites like this.

Well, actually it does. Well technically it doesn't allow you to violate the principles, but it does allow you to talk about violating the principles. The right to speak your mind for better or worse is one of the fundamental principles of a free and open soceity. The internet with it's anonimity and instantaneous global reach is the purest form of this principle in action today. In many countires where this freedom of speech is not protected by the government, the internet is the only option some people have to exercise this freedom.

Unfortunatly many people choose to excercise this opportunity to appeal to the basest of human behavior. But that is their right, as long as they are only talking about it and not actually participating in those things they speak of.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
Baron Munchausen, we are talking about linedancers, not anything more sinister..

It is hardly the same

Hmmmm. This is uncharacteristically illogical of you Gt. This whole thing wouldn't be a charade would it? Playing "Devil's Advocate" for the purposes of spuring some heated debate by chance?

Geoschmo

[ July 15, 2002, 15:46: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Growltigga]

Geo, I am a lawyer and a finance lawyer to boot

I will argue with anybody about anything anytime

Playing Devil's Advocate is ingrained in my psyche

You are talking about "Freedom of Speech" as it pertains to the American ideal. We have freedom of Speech over here in Europe, but it does not extend to talking about breaking the rules in the sense of imbuing a freedom to discuss issues such as child pornography.

We have a wonderful concept called inchoate offences which means that that is illegal.

Probably "inhibits" my freedom of speech more than the American ideal but do you know? I think I prefer it.

Under our laws, this extends to websaites such as the one in point, ie if someone complained, our internet police can do somthing about it.. you Amercians cannot...

And as for linedancers... well, Baron Munchausen, if you are a linedancer, then I apologise for suggesting the bet I am talking about and shall amend my sig accordingly

[geoschmo]

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech unless it extends to those things which you find objectionable. Talking about something is not the same thing as doing it. Child pornography is NOT freedom of speech, because to get it you have to break the laws of man, and take away the childs basic human rights. So that is not even near the same thing as the website that is the start of this whole topic.

However, your sig IS very much like what the website is that started this whole topic.

Originally posted by Growltigga:
And as for linedancers... well, Baron Munchausen, if you are a linedancer, then I apologise for suggesting the bet I am talking about and shall amend my sig accordingly

You should not have had to be called on the carpet by Baron about this. And you should not only change it because it offends Baron. You should be ashamed of your self according to your own stringent belief system for making a humerous comment regarding the death and dismemberment of people in any context.

You apparently want to kill and dismember people, not to remove a problem such as overpopulation (which is the professed problem whcih the afformentioned website seeks to remedy) but simply for your own ammusment and financial gain.

For shame Gt! (EDIT: Sorry, forgot to wink. )

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 16:18: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[disabled]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-g...11/09.00.games

Food for thought

[Growltigga]

Freedom of speech is not freedom of speech unless it extends to those things which you find objectionable

No, you are worng here and I have somewhere here in my office that Californian lawsuit judgement that went into this - I shall get my secretary to find it and post it. Freedom of Speech does not give you free rein to talk about whatever you want. It gives you the right to air certain views, but not where those views are illegal

Talking about something is not the same thing as doing it. Child pornography is NOT freedom of speech, because to get it you have to break the laws of man, and take away the childs basic human rights.

I agree, talking about something is not the same as doing it but that is an incredibly simplistic viewpoint... talking about genocide in the way this web site goes into it is incitement at the very least, and would break several EU and UK moralioty principals to boot.... I can talk about

Talking about child pronography is not illegal, I can talk about it now and I am not being illegal... if I talk about it with the same phraseology these peope use to discuss genocide, then I AM inciting it, and 'advancing' it, and that, even under US law is illegal.. The line is too fine to start using fredom of speech as a defence

You should not have had to be called on the carpet by Baron about this .

What carpet are you talking about?.... the fundamental difference between that website and my sig is proportionality. They are advocating a real problem, genocide, it was happening 2 years ago in Bosnia, it is still happening in Iraq and, if rumours are true, all over Africa

I am talking about taking bets on 20 linedancers doh-see-dohing in a minefield.. How likely is that? I would like to see you make any charge of incitement stick on that!!

I have a stringent belief system. I would not jest about real issues. I view child pornography and genocide as real-life issues. I do not see my hypothetical premis of taking bets on line dancers dancing in a minefield as being likely

[ July 15, 2002, 16:34: Message edited by: Growltigga ]

[geoschmo]

Hmmm, Hadrian Posts the comment "Food for thought." and a link to an article about video games damaging the brain. I am sure there is a suitably ironic and scathingly sarcastic comment in these two items somewhere, but for the life of me I can't recon what it is. Perhaps my wit has been dulled by too many video games.

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 16:29: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[geoschmo]

Gt, let me stop for a moment here and congratulate you. You have managed to deftly manipulate the debate to position anyone who disagrees with you as being in favor of child pornography. Excellent use of the straw man technique. It was so subtly done I almost didn't notice it and allowed my self to argue according to your terms for a moment. If I ever have business dealings in the UK and am in need of a competent litigator, I will certainly keep you in mind.

The inescapable fact which you can not get away from is, the website in question is a joke. It's a sick joke no doubt. And it's not even a funny joke, either in subject matter or in execution. (ooo, was that a poor choice of terms? ) But you would not be able to make your hypothetical case of inciting against the website in question any more so than one could make one against you for your offending signature.

The website in question proposes as a solution to overpopulation the extermination of every human being on earth. Not only do they not support their initial hypothesis of the problem with any scientific evidence, their "solution" to the problem is so ridiculously extreme as to not be taken seriously.

The means that they advocate for this extermination is the clicking of the mouse on a website button which correlates to a map representation of the earth. No explanation of the function whereby this clicking would result in the death of a single person, much less the deaths of billions. Again, so pathetically vague as to not be taken seriously.

However I could, if I were so inclined, most likely purchase the necessary materials to effect YOUR dastardly scheme. I am not rich by any means (certainly not of the level of one employed as a finance lawyer) and I believe that I could purchase the prerequisite 100 mines given a few months.

The line dancers would be a bit more problematic. As I live in southwest Ohio, or what is more commonly referred to as Northern Kentucky, the supply of line dancers is far greater than that of mines. But the problem there would be not one of simple supply, but one of motivating them to follow my instructions at the risk of life an limb. Average educational levels and general public opinion notwithstanding, line dancers are not typically idiots.

However were I an individual of sufficient means, say a person who could travel to Japan for sporting events at the drop of a hat, and plan for weeks long safaris in the African plain a few short months later, then perhaps I could motivate a few dedicated individuals who held the same low esteem of linedancers that I did to assist me in this venture. I could afford to purchase the necessary "motivational equipment" that could be used to bring my evil plan to fruition.

So sir, I put to you that your plan is actually the more likely of the two, and thus the far more dangerous one to be permitted to be uttered.

Somebody get me the number for Interpol please, "Thought police" division preferably.

Geo

[ July 15, 2002, 17:20: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Growltigga]

If I ever have business dealings in the UK and am in need of a competent litigator, I will certainly keep you in mind.

But I am not a litigator... you do not even want to know what one of those guys are like (too much red meat and testosterone I am told)

However I could, if I were so inclined, most likely purchase the necessary materials to effect YOUR dastardly scheme. I am not rich by any means (certainly not of the level of one employed as a finance lawyer) and I believe that I could purchase the prerequisite 100 mines given a few months.

How? dont tell me your gun laws are so lax you can buy mines can you?

Average educational levels and general public opinion notwithstanding, line dancers are not typically idiots.

You are right - it takes a lot of brainpower to wear chaps and a stetson, call yourself "Dead Eye Dick" or something similar and dance like a fit

However were I an individual of sufficient means, say a person who could travel to Japan for sporting events at the drop of a hat,

You dont want to know how long I saved for that trip or how deep in debt I am now... us UK lawyers earn about 1/4 of what equivalent lawyers do...

and Borneo is not in Africa, it is in South East Asia and I have got one hell of a deal on that trip

So sir, I put to you that your plan is actually the more likely of the two, and thus the far more dangerous one to be permitted to be uttered.

I disagree, I am solicitor of the supreme court and therefore honest, noble, brave and wise... I would not ruin 100 landmines that way

Somebody get me the number for Interpol please, "Thought police" division preferably.

Someone get the attendents from the local funny farm down here to take you and Baron Munchausen away... dont worry, we will give you stylish straightjackets....

[Pax]

Originally posted by Growltigga:
But I suppose it's part of the price we pay for freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech does not permit you to violate both public policy principals and public morality.

Freedom of Speech does not allow me to stand on my soapbox and advocate genocide, rape, abuse, child pornography or a whole host of other issues. Freedom of Speech should not allow stupid bloody websites like this.

WRONG.

That is EXACTLY what Freedom OF Speech means. We are supposed to be able to speak about ANYTHIGN WE WANT -- not just "approved topics" ... not just to advocate "approved positions" or "approved opinions" ...

For example, I personally find White Supremacy to be not only a crock of sh*t, but also abhorrent. But you know what? I'll happily defend their right to hold, and express, their views.

Free speech is just that -- the freedom to speak. About anything -- not just "about what soiciety deems palatable for conversation" ...

If Eruopeans believe that Freedom to Speak should be limited in any way whatsoever related solely to the topic being discussed ... then you folks don't have FREE speech. You have APPROVED speech.

Normally I am displeased with my country, owing to the deplorable trends in foreign policy and the ghastly restriction of rights domestically.

But ... thank you, you've just restored in me SOME gladness to be an American, and not be from somewhere else.

Free speech is without topic / opinion based limitations ... or it's not free. This isn't just an issueof American vs European ideals ... it's an issue of logic.

If someone says "You are free to discuss only that which I approve for you to discuss" ... then he's not giving me freedom to discuss much of anything at all.