It seemed worth reiterating:P

You're a funny girl girlie.

Of course our friends have every right to talk. Friends talk to friends. Enemies and children worry about conversations being politically correct. Adults especially love it when peers state opinions. Defined is a difference between a child who entertains his emotions verses an adult who wants facts no matter how bad that reality may be.

In Iraq, reporters were telling us how bad it was. Therefore children in the US government complained reporters were not telling the whole truth - not reporting good things. Reality: Iraq was even worse than reported. But children in America did not like that reality; blamed the reporters.

Be it reporters or our foreign friends, the more honest criticism we get, then the better. At least if one is an adult.

Bruce - did I just accuse you of being a child? Let's see whether you deal with facts or jump to an emotional response.

But again, this is the new Cellar - due to many who now jump to emotional conclusions rather than deal (like adults) with reality.

Sorry, Bruce. I temporarily don't have a personal insult to direct at you. I will make up for it later (or am saving it for TheMercenary who has earned the right to collect personal attacks).

Does anyone have a problem with Duck Duck’s posts? Why? She is a sixteen year old meaning she is really in her first year of grasping the world. Notice she cites the Washington Times as a source. Do we attack her for being naïve, or simply note problems with her logic? Notice how many now have become so ‘child’ as to be emotionally angry with Duck Duck. Silly me. Posts are now justified by a new Cellar attitude.

Did I mention that TheMercenary is a pedophile? He loves sex with young kittens.

tw, when you said before that I had changed my behaviour, what were you trying to say?

I don't think that agreeing on an issue with someone that you may in general butt heads with means a person has changed. To me it means that it's not personal, even if I may not like the way that person chooses to express themselves. It's obvious plenty here don't like the way I express myself either. Such is life. We all have to learn how to choose our battles.

Many if not most Americans have little idea of anything outside of America. Who are the presidents of Mexico and Canada? I would bet most every American does not even know. But they certainly know when Canadians are critical of "Mission Accomplished". How dare they! Heaven forbid should Americans realize how correct Canadians were about justifications for war.

A double standard is acceptable because so many Americans have no idea what happens in other nations. Since naive Americans cannot criticize, then informed non-Americans have no right to criticize?

The useful solution is for naive Americans to listen rather than taking a child 'emotional' response to such criticisms. Duck Duck may be naive. Adult Americans would not reply with acidity.

The King of Double Standard statements! Heh.:D
Someone give LJ a call.:3eye:

tw, you keep bringing up foreign policy which I clearly said I would expect foreigners to comment on because it effects them.

Duck duck doesn't bother me because she clearly has no clue. One of the reasons she has no clue, is she doesn't understand the culture of the US, she lives in a different culture, a different world. This is not an uncommon problem with foreigners, they just don't get it.

The same goes for Americans saying the Brits don't want freedom, which is preposterous. They don't understand the culture, and just don't get it.

Which is understandable when so many Americans cannot even name the presidents of Mexico and Canada - let alone understand British (or French) culture. Distortion made easier if news sources are the local gossip or a political agenda (ie Fox).

Using the Washington Times as a 'window on America', well, Duck_Duck is young. She has years of learning how to put things into proper perspective. However I was appalled at how some adults could not take an adult perspective of her posts. So many replies with emotional angst rather than logical tolerance.

Dude, you are the king of such idiocy.:eek:

Step 3: Attempting to disagree with an actual, thoughtful response.

You can do it...I'm rootin' for ya!

You forgot Step 1, post an actual, thoughtful comment by which others can respond not peppered with speculative conspiracy theory.;)

Uh uh, that wasn't Step 1. Hopefully that's all behind us now.

Freedom is freedom, do what you like and say what you like as long as it does not harm others or infringe on their right to do the same.
If they don't like it, they can go somewhere else, change the channel or close their door.
That is freedom.
Being told you cannot speak your mind, think something and gather with like minded friends is not freedom.
Europe selects who they think should have rights. They choose who are "good" people and "bad" people and dole out their brand of "Freedom" to each according to who they like.
The BNP, or more hilarious, some BANDS, LOL!!! are "Bad" so they get less freedom than others.
Others are "Good" so they get more freedom of speech.
The idea that this is one idea of "freedom" is bullshit. It is not freedom it is fascism.
But, I could care less, the Europeans chose it, they want it and they can have it.
The reason I brought it up is because it is a good example of where we are headed if we let down our guard.
That is why I brought it up.
I could care less if others think that their comfort is worth their freedom of speech, not to be monitored by the government 24/7 or right to protect themselves.... it is not my problem.

The BNP, much to my dismay, are an entirely legal political party. They can say anything they want as long as it does not contravene laws regarding incitement to racial hatred and violence. Laws were brought in to ensure that people did not have to right to incite racial hatred and violence, because we had a very large problem with racist violence and disturbances. We still do, but not to the same extent as we did under the older system, in which the NF (BNP's predecessors) led a reign of terror against the ethnic minority communities in Britain, as well as against any non-mainstream, left-leaning political group.

Even now, with our supposedly draconian laws, BNP speakers can whip up a rally of supporters, referring to 'ethnics' as 'cockroaches who should be wiped out, cleared out' do not actually face any sanction. The BNP has a paramilitary wing. It acts both within and without the law.

What happens, when the freedom they enjoy, extends to shouting 'Paki' and 'suicide bomber' through the letter box of a 67 year old widow, daubing 'SS' on her front foor and throwing rocks at the back window? Unless you can catch 'em at it, you can't prosecute. Incidents like that and worse are a daily occurrence in some areas. Racial tensions are a major factor in many of our towns and cities.

We had a lull, in this sort of stuff, for about a decade and a bit, things calmed down and the movement towards multi-culturalism was quite strong. That was when the NF had been effectively stomped down and (because any revolutionary movement necessarily runs out of steam as its supporters realise the revolution is not around the corner) before they had rebranded themselves as the BNP.

The American political paradigm, seems to be the strength or weakness of the rightwing, religious lobby. The European paradigm seems to be more to do with the strength or weakness of the far-right, nationalist, supremacist movements.

I am talking about free speech, the examples you used are assault and valdalism... but you know that. OT.
Try, if you can, to stay on topic please.
If someone wants to say they feel that the white/black/polish/russian race is superior, that is their right. If they want to use racial slurs, it is free speech. If they state they want people to hurt others, it is not. Pretty simple.
There is a difference between free speech, like wearing a swastika or Aryan cross and incitement to riot or violence and the difference is clear... at least to those who care about freedom.
Freedom is freedom is freedom.

What if by saying all those things that they are free to say, and by using racial slurs without restriction, they foster a sense of fear amongst the group in question? What if the effect of that acceptance of racism is to foster further racism, and lead to a culture in which an ethnic minority lives in fear of the white majority? At what point does their right not to feel intimidated outweigh the right of a racist group to propogate hatred?

How racist is America? Serious question. I'm sure it's come up before but I'd really be interested to know.

No one has a right to be "protected" from another's speech. You are making it sound like people have a right to be comfortable... to me that is nuts.
There is only one race, the human race, no two people are the same color.
I don't believe in more than one race.

That's fine, neither do I.

I think it is fairly racist, but also tolerant. I have spent a bit of time in Europe and I think they are more outwardly racist and less tolerant of people who are of a non-european ethnic origin. JMHO based on personal experience.

At my workplace we have had a few issues with people refusing to work well with our Indian sysadmin.

She speaks with a heavy accent and this causes some people to not want to do anything for her. When I say "some people" I mean colocation facilities that we pay $1-2000 a month, partly for their help getting things done.

This is only a problem at 3 out of about 150 locations, so there's that.

They are all in the South and I refuse to find that a coincidence.

I have not noticed any specific white-on-black racism in a long time. I have noticed a ton of black-on-white racism.

A HUGE issue in the Military today.

rkz, I'm assuming from your posts that you think it's ok for Klan meetings to take place and as long as they only talk about how much they hate non whites and only say the things they'd like to do to them it's ok?

To bad for us, but in fact the First Amendment actually supports them in this specific act. As long as they do not plan or spew forth violent plans they are good to go. Does not change the fact they are a hate group in the same vein as Louis Farakan and his Negro hate group.

So they can't be arrested for 'conspiring to do whatever' because they're perfectly within their rights to talk all they like.

Correct. They are protected under our Consitution. As are the Nazi's and New Black Panther Party.

The 'crossed line' is a difference between "only talk about how much they hate non whites" verses "planning to actually perform a violent crime". We can talk all we want about the scumbag president. But the minute we talk about killing him, expect a visit by Federal agents. Another example of 'crossing the line'; when exercising one's rights imposes unacceptably on the rights of others.

In Skokie IL, the Civil Liberties Union defended the Klan's right to demonstrate in that very Jewish town. KKK had the right to declare hate of Jews. They had no right to plan actions that called for murdering Jews.

Well, no--that sort of thing is not protected under the Constitution. They can do it, and not be arrested for it, though.

Well we all know that people who live their lives talking about hating others, rarely live their lives only talking about hating others.

This is why I and most likely others don't agree that allowing people to express these sorts of hatred in public is a good thing.

If someone can explain or show me some evidence that this sort of talk is not harmful then I'm all ears (or eyes as the case may be).

I don't know, I get the feeling that many of those who talk so much about their hate for others, actually base their lives on it. Like a desperate grasp to feel better about themselves. That's why these groups form, I think.

There is a lot of propoganda floating around out there--and if you trace it to its source, it all comes from organized groups. They try to disguise it as random opinion, but there's always something sketchy about it.

The thing is, in Europe we had a rather sharp lesson about what happens when hate groups are allowed to fester unhindered. On the whole, over the years, very few people have actually gone far enough to be prosecutable, and even then mostly juries throw them out. It's a fine line similar to the line just described between talking about, and planning to.

The exceptions to that are symbols like swastikas, or holocaust denial. The holocaust denial bit I think is taken as a slander against the Jewish race. Swastikas, because of what they stand for in European culture, are seen as inherently inciting racial hatred.

It's the First Amendment he's referring to. Free speech means Klansmen, Black Panthers, anybody.

It's not that hate speech isn't harmful. It's that we're not willing to risk the possibility that by restricting their speech, someone will someday find a way to restrict our own. We are, as a nation, deeply against anything that even appears to be a slippery slope.

"Only talk about"?
What do you mean by that?
They can talk about what ever they want. That is freedom. Just because people don't like it does not mean they don't have the right.
Our beliefs disgust them as much as theirs disgust us. It is the SAME THING.
People are dying now so they continue to have the right to speak their mind.
It is the reason our nation was formed.

A Jewish man defended them, a patriot.

You dislike them so much, do you only talk about it? Same thing.
Perhaps we should not just limit their rights like the Nazis did the Jews in Germany, as Europe is doing now... perhaps we should make them wear a symbol on their clothing? Is that good enough? Why let them breed? Why not just get rid of them for good?

Yes, I know he's referring to the First Amendment, and I am aware that it applies to everybody. Just as it applies to everybody, when the expressions of views cross the line over to conduct. Conspiring to harm and personal intimidation are not protected by the First Amendment.

Personal intimidation is not protected, but looking scary is. Just because someone is afraid doesn't make it rational or reasonable.
Just because someone cowers in the corner booth, when a bunch of fierce looking bikers enter the bar, doesn't make it their fault. Nor are they compelled to change their dress or swagger.

When I worked in LA I used to joke around with my, actual/original, southern dialect (before I neutralized it). It was a predominantly gay company, very PC.
I was called into my boss' office because it "scared" some of my fellow office members.
I laughed and did not stop.
That kind of stuff should be ignored...
People do not have a right not to be afraid of others.

Well stated. I see it that way as well.

Heeelllllooooooooo?

hello what?

My point is that one thing leads to another.

You think it's ok for people to talk about doing violence but it's not ok for them to actually do it.

If they weren't thinking about doing it, they wouldn't be talking about it.

Yep, I'm glad you're proud to live in a country that openly allows such bigotry and hate to go unchecked.

You go ahead and defend the rights of those racists to be the arseholes that they are.

One day when their talk leads to actions which affect your family then come and tell me how it's their right to plot and plan their evil deeds.

When did I say anything about violence?
Evil deeds? LOL!!!
One is the same as another, theirs and those who would do unto them... the SAME, identical.

It is not the same because normal rational people don't hate other people based on the colour of their skin.

Normal rational people don't hold meetings and get togethers with their friends and talk about the foul things they'd like to do to people who don't look just like them.

Do they? Or is it that different in America that those sorts of behaviours are considered normal?

Normal, rational, people don't want to have more rights than others.
Elitists and fascists do... that's the definition of both of those words.

yes well I'm not going to debates rights again. It's been done to death already.

I disagree with you and your defense of your constitutional rights. I don't buy it and I never will. You all talk of freedom and yet from the outside it simply doesn't appear that anyone is free. I'm sure you feel differently. You've said so many times. I simply don't agree that what you have is that great and I don't believe it's as black and white as you do.

Other laws restict people's behaviours if they want to live in a so called 'free' society. Laws to do with how much alcohol you are 'free' to drink if you want to drive a car. Laws to do with being quiet when you go to watch a trial. Laws to do with which side of the road you drive on. Laws are created to protect the innocent.

How many more innocent people have to suffer for your freedom?

No, what I said is that most people can't handle freedom and you prove it.

That's bullshit rkz. Surely you can find a better retort than insinuations about what I can and can't handle.

You are no better than I am.

"No better"? I never stated or insinuated I was better than anyone. Much less stated I should have more freedom or rights than anyone, or any group.

Should i not take your statement, "most people can't handle freedom and you prove it" literally?

Am I to assume you feel/stated that you feel comfortable sorting out who should have freedom of speech and who should not; who gets to say what and who does not?

I don't think you should assume anything.

Are you going to answer my question?

If you mean that I am stating that:
A: Most people cannot handle being free
B: I feel you are one of them based on your opinions expressed in here
C: That enough in Europe and other nations feel it is acceptable to hold the same oppressive attitude toward those who do not think/speak as they do, most cannot handle freedom

Absolutely.

Your turn.

Well that's your opinion rkz. Very far from fact if you're making a comparison between say the US and Australia.

You are a product of your environment just as much as anyone else and that's very clear.

The US constitution is very far from a perfect document as is the US government very far from a perfect form of governance. Consider first that criticizing another way of life or thought doesn't make your own way of life or thought better.

No country is perfect in the way it manages its people and its laws. Not even the US believe it or not.

Just because other nations are not the US does not mean they or the people who live there are less free simply because they don't have the same constitution as you do.

Actually I was talking to you about the Euro policy then your opinion, I don't remember bringing Australia into it.

Are you going to answer my question now that I answered yours?

I believe everyone in a democratic nation has a right to state their case and try and change the things that they think are wrong within their society.

If I had a problem with the laws regarding free speach and the right to demonstrate in my country I would do something about it.

At this stage I have no problem with them and i believe them to be fair.

We are comparing apples and oranges. Freedom as a word carries different cultural connotations in different cultural groups. Most Americans will have a slightly different set of assumptions about the concept of freedom than do most Europeans.

I still say that is BS. Freedom is freedom.
Some just don't want their neighbors to have it so they are ok with giving it up themselves.

What is truly funny to me is that by making those groups "outlaws" Europe makes them MUCH more attractive to the disenfranchised youth that they target, harder to track, more powerful and entrenched within their own community, forces them to deal with terrorist groups (which the Euro groups do and the US groups do not), and makes it much harder to know what they are doing and discussing at any time.
It also sends a message of weakness, states clearly that they cannot handle them and, therefore, must make special laws for them based on fear. It lends them credibility.
Dumb, dumb, DUMB.

Yea, I would have to agree, Euopeans don't have much to talk about when talking about treatment of immigrants, legal or otherwise. They certainly should not be throwing stones from the glass house they live in.

What, no rational, clear retort?

So, unless we have perfected our technique for dealing with the immigration issue, any denizens of Europe have no right to comment on American immigration issues, when it is raised on an internet forum? I seem to recall I have been in here many times railing against my own country's handling of immigration, I don't reserve my negative opinion for America on this.

Is that aimed at me? I didn't feel there was much point continuing the conversation. This is something we have discussed before and I think there's little chance of either of us moving in any way nearer to the other in our opinions.

But to answer your charge. If you are referring to making right wing political groups illegal, that is not really true of Britain. Certain activities, including speech intended to incite racial hatred, are illegal. The definitions are very narrow and this is seen, by most people, as no more of a bar to free expression as are libel and slander laws. The same applies to published material.

Right wing political organisations are as free to form and exist as any other group as long as their stated intent does not contravene the laws already mentioned. The British National Party stands in elections and from time to time wins seats. They publish leaflets with fairly racist stuff, but it treads enough of a line that it doesn't contravene the laws. Other organisations are also careful when publishing, so as not to contravene libel laws. Yet, in terms of what can and does get published we are no more (arguably much less) censored than anywhere else. Likewise in terms of what can be, and is shown on television.

Those judicial attitudes to libel have been a part of our culture for a very long time, and the laws on inciting racial hatred to me seem very similar. One protects an individual or organisation from malicious or frivolous attacks on the character, and the other protects people from a similar attack on their ethnicity.

This is the way we organise our society. We consider our society to be free in our own terms. You are free to define 'freedom' in whatever way best corresponds to your cultural identity.