Careful, or I'll have to put me beer down and kick yer fookin ahss!Gene wrote:Bill wrote:
bumper sticker on his car telling the world that the Irish are drunk and violent
You mean they're not?
- Bill
This is legal?
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
On the deprogramming thing... Absolutely. Once again, read Grossman. He goes through the whole thing.
The biggest problem with vets is they don't get help when they need it.
The biggest problem with vets is they don't get help when they need it.
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 1;351(1):13-22.
Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care.
Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, McGurk D, Cotting DI, Koffman RL.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Silver Spring, Md 20910, USA. charles.hoge@na.amedd.army.mil
BACKGROUND: The current combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have involved U.S. military personnel in major ground combat and hazardous security duty. Studies are needed to systematically assess the mental health of members of the armed services who have participated in these operations and to inform policy with regard to the optimal delivery of mental health care to returning veterans.
METHODS: We studied members of four U.S. combat infantry units (three Army units and one Marine Corps unit) using an anonymous survey that was administered to the subjects either before their deployment to Iraq (n=2530) or three to four months after their return from combat duty in Iraq or Afghanistan (n=3671). The outcomes included major depression, generalized anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which were evaluated on the basis of standardized, self-administered screening instruments.
RESULTS: Exposure to combat was significantly greater among those who were deployed to Iraq than among those deployed to Afghanistan. The percentage of study subjects whose responses met the screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety, or PTSD was significantly higher after duty in Iraq (15.6 to 17.1 percent) than after duty in Afghanistan (11.2 percent) or before deployment to Iraq (9.3 percent); the largest difference was in the rate of PTSD. Of those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder, only 23 to 40 percent sought mental health care. Those whose responses were positive for a mental disorder were twice as likely as those whose responses were negative to report concern about possible stigmatization and other barriers to seeking mental health care.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an initial look at the mental health of members of the Army and the Marine Corps who were involved in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our findings indicate that among the study groups there was a significant risk of mental health problems and that the subjects reported important barriers to receiving mental health services, particularly the perception of stigma among those most in need of such care.
"What a crock Ian! I am alarmed by the crap on the back of the vehicle, I also am alarmed by the acceptance of it as free speech by the yanks on site."
We agree on the first point. But I have enough confidence in my fellow americans, as dimwitted as most of us are, to be able to read this kind of thing while driving and not turn into rabid psychopaths. I just read it, and all it did was remind me of the STUPIDITY of prejudice, which was opposite to the intended effect. It takes chutzpah to decide that while *I* am clearly able to read something like this and not go crazy, I am sufficiently superior to my neighbors to tell them all they're not qualified to form their own opinions about it. I don't need to be sheltered from this drivel + I consider my equals EQUAL = they can read it too = freedom of speech.
"Yes it smacks of 1984 and thought crimes, it could be a slippery slope but we watch our government closely and are moving towards less not more government. But when one of our citizens goes out of their way to promote hatred our legal system begins to deal said individual for the safety of all Canadians. The law is soft at the moment but we are starting to take a very dim view of this sort of activity. We have deported individuals for this offence."
Deporting someone for speech isn't exactly "less government" in my book. Whoa. Who decides? What if I hate obesity and hate smoking and hate drug use and hate prostitution or even hate religious conservatives who hate me? When does Big Brother decide my hatred of those things extends to people involved in those things and move to deport me? If I can't speak out against things I think are bad for the country, why be able to even think they're bad for the country? If a bumper sticker will foster hate, why not ban every WWII or first person shooter video game? Or every martial arts game? Or every martial art? Why would I go into an antimuslim rage reading a sticker and not become a crazed killer after playing soul caliber for 4 hours? Who decides? The government censor again?
"From what I understand in America you can say what you want as long as you don’t cause physical harm. ...in Canada a bumper sticker reading: The only Good Homo is a Dead Homo , would probably result in a visit from the police."
You can say anything that doesn't incite violence or immediate disruption. Gene could tell us the exact rule. The classic example is the prohibition on yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Stickers that may or may not advocating killing are borderline. If Hitler said that about Jews, we'd all know he meant they should be killed, and so that'd be illegal. But this guy might just be saying he doesn't feel right about a living muslim, but has no plans to kill anyone (akin to "I just wished they all dropped dead." That's obnoxious but not illegal. As for the Dead Homo sticker, I'd rather see that on the car of anyone approaching me than have had it removed shortly before so I didn't know, right?
"You can think and feel what you wish, but if it’s illegal you can not promote it. I like that law!"
Of course, what this means is that I'm no longer free to tell anyone that I think it's ok (not wise, but acceptable if they understand the risks) to use marijuana, drive one mile over the speed limit, have sex when they're 17, or borrow an Allegra that was prescribed to their girlfriend. This is what you get when you carry your law to the extreme: a prohibition against disagreeing with the government's rules. THAT "just doesn't suport my values."
"I'm not seeing much "domestic Tranquility" when I see hatred publically promoted....you call if freedom of speech....I call it hate-mongering...."
And we're both right about what to call it. However, you've not proven your case that our version of free speech has cost us domestic tranquility. That's quite a claim actually. And if there is a scuffle at one of the KKK marches... well sometimes values are at cross purposes, since we also have to "secure the blessings of liberty."
"If I was a Muslim-American of Arab descent I'd call into question a government that does nothing to protect my rights not to read that filth."
We should all question out governments, but you do have a right not to read that filth here, and if anyone were caught forcing you to do so, they'd be subject to prosecution.
We agree on the first point. But I have enough confidence in my fellow americans, as dimwitted as most of us are, to be able to read this kind of thing while driving and not turn into rabid psychopaths. I just read it, and all it did was remind me of the STUPIDITY of prejudice, which was opposite to the intended effect. It takes chutzpah to decide that while *I* am clearly able to read something like this and not go crazy, I am sufficiently superior to my neighbors to tell them all they're not qualified to form their own opinions about it. I don't need to be sheltered from this drivel + I consider my equals EQUAL = they can read it too = freedom of speech.
"Yes it smacks of 1984 and thought crimes, it could be a slippery slope but we watch our government closely and are moving towards less not more government. But when one of our citizens goes out of their way to promote hatred our legal system begins to deal said individual for the safety of all Canadians. The law is soft at the moment but we are starting to take a very dim view of this sort of activity. We have deported individuals for this offence."
Deporting someone for speech isn't exactly "less government" in my book. Whoa. Who decides? What if I hate obesity and hate smoking and hate drug use and hate prostitution or even hate religious conservatives who hate me? When does Big Brother decide my hatred of those things extends to people involved in those things and move to deport me? If I can't speak out against things I think are bad for the country, why be able to even think they're bad for the country? If a bumper sticker will foster hate, why not ban every WWII or first person shooter video game? Or every martial arts game? Or every martial art? Why would I go into an antimuslim rage reading a sticker and not become a crazed killer after playing soul caliber for 4 hours? Who decides? The government censor again?
"From what I understand in America you can say what you want as long as you don’t cause physical harm. ...in Canada a bumper sticker reading: The only Good Homo is a Dead Homo , would probably result in a visit from the police."
You can say anything that doesn't incite violence or immediate disruption. Gene could tell us the exact rule. The classic example is the prohibition on yelling "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Stickers that may or may not advocating killing are borderline. If Hitler said that about Jews, we'd all know he meant they should be killed, and so that'd be illegal. But this guy might just be saying he doesn't feel right about a living muslim, but has no plans to kill anyone (akin to "I just wished they all dropped dead." That's obnoxious but not illegal. As for the Dead Homo sticker, I'd rather see that on the car of anyone approaching me than have had it removed shortly before so I didn't know, right?
"You can think and feel what you wish, but if it’s illegal you can not promote it. I like that law!"
Of course, what this means is that I'm no longer free to tell anyone that I think it's ok (not wise, but acceptable if they understand the risks) to use marijuana, drive one mile over the speed limit, have sex when they're 17, or borrow an Allegra that was prescribed to their girlfriend. This is what you get when you carry your law to the extreme: a prohibition against disagreeing with the government's rules. THAT "just doesn't suport my values."
"I'm not seeing much "domestic Tranquility" when I see hatred publically promoted....you call if freedom of speech....I call it hate-mongering...."
And we're both right about what to call it. However, you've not proven your case that our version of free speech has cost us domestic tranquility. That's quite a claim actually. And if there is a scuffle at one of the KKK marches... well sometimes values are at cross purposes, since we also have to "secure the blessings of liberty."
"If I was a Muslim-American of Arab descent I'd call into question a government that does nothing to protect my rights not to read that filth."
We should all question out governments, but you do have a right not to read that filth here, and if anyone were caught forcing you to do so, they'd be subject to prosecution.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Quite frankly, Willy, your position surprises me in some ways, and not in others.
1) You are loyal - to a fault. Loyalty is a good quality. "To a fault" is what it is.
2) You also don't like to be censored. Right? (You KNOW I'm right on that one.)
I imagine if the sticker was something you felt passionate about, you'd probably want your right to speak the opinion upheld.
That's the thing... Deciding what free speech is correct and what isn't is fairly dicey business.
Threatening someone to their face? I can see issues. Yell something that gets people hurt (like "Fire!" in a movie theater)? I can see issues. But people can differ on what is an acceptable and an unacceptable exercise of free speech. That's the problem. The minority opinion can suffer here, and it's the minority view that our laws should work to protect. (The majority usually gets its way by hook or by crook.)
I can see some real issues with a few of your statements.
Non-citizens and felons don't have the same rights as regular citizen, so I can see being harsher here. But born and bred in the country pretty much means we're stuck - one way or another.
But of course you knew that.
Back when the eco-Nazis forced the speed limit down to 55 mph - with no evidence that it reduced gas consumption - there was quite a movement against the law. Sammy Haggar wrote a song about it. I repeatedly got caught doing 65 mph in a 55 mph on roads that are now 65 mph again. Pretty stupid when you think about it. Shouldn't they make that speed limit retroactive? I and millions of others engaged in scofflawry, and promoted our lifestyle. Ultimately we prevailed because we were in the right. I got unnecessarily prosecuted enough as it was. Get prosecuted more because I played Sammy Haggar's protest song at 100 db on my car stereo? I don't think so.
So who gets to decide what illegal promotion is OK, and what should be prosecuted? Personally I'd like to let any speech not causing direct harm be out there for us all to view and deal with.
FWIW, I have to tell you that in all my years of driving, I've never seen such an extreme example of vile bumper stickers. But I can deal with it - even if I was the one being slandered.
We put up with some pretty vile preaching by extremists right here in our country - including Muslim extremists. For example, ever heard some of the sermons by Louis Farrakhan? I think a few such bumper stickers are pretty much in the same league. You either allow it all, or you decide to make it go underground. I'd rather hear it all.
But if we're going to ban such bumper stickers, then as far as I am concerned Yankee bumper stickers also have to go! They offend me deeply. Fair is fair!
The reality of it all is that such an individual doesn't have a lot of lattitude to operate in our society. The vast majority of organizations in this country are so politically correct and anti free expression that such an individual couldn't even think of joining any group worth belonging to. I'd get fired for driving that vehicle into my company parking lot. It's legal, but... No job is a bit tough. Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen just got fined, suspended, and has to undergo sensitivity training all because he called a spineless reporter (slammed him but never shows up at the ballpark) a "fag." Yep... Not much in the way of "free speech" there.
This disabled veteran is probably either independently employed or so badly messed up that he's on permanent disability and essentially a ward of the state. As the song says, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." It's sad when you think about it.
- Bill
1) You are loyal - to a fault. Loyalty is a good quality. "To a fault" is what it is.
2) You also don't like to be censored. Right? (You KNOW I'm right on that one.)
I imagine if the sticker was something you felt passionate about, you'd probably want your right to speak the opinion upheld.
That's the thing... Deciding what free speech is correct and what isn't is fairly dicey business.
Threatening someone to their face? I can see issues. Yell something that gets people hurt (like "Fire!" in a movie theater)? I can see issues. But people can differ on what is an acceptable and an unacceptable exercise of free speech. That's the problem. The minority opinion can suffer here, and it's the minority view that our laws should work to protect. (The majority usually gets its way by hook or by crook.)
I can see some real issues with a few of your statements.
Where would you deport a native, disabled veteran to?Willy wrote:
We have deported individuals for this offence.
Non-citizens and felons don't have the same rights as regular citizen, so I can see being harsher here. But born and bred in the country pretty much means we're stuck - one way or another.
But of course you knew that.
As with Ian, I too see issues with such a law.Willy wrote:
You can think and feel what you wish, but if it’s illegal you can not promote it. I like that law!
Back when the eco-Nazis forced the speed limit down to 55 mph - with no evidence that it reduced gas consumption - there was quite a movement against the law. Sammy Haggar wrote a song about it. I repeatedly got caught doing 65 mph in a 55 mph on roads that are now 65 mph again. Pretty stupid when you think about it. Shouldn't they make that speed limit retroactive?
I and millions of others engaged in scofflawry, and promoted our lifestyle. Ultimately we prevailed because we were in the right. I got unnecessarily prosecuted enough as it was. Get prosecuted more because I played Sammy Haggar's protest song at 100 db on my car stereo? I don't think so.So who gets to decide what illegal promotion is OK, and what should be prosecuted? Personally I'd like to let any speech not causing direct harm be out there for us all to view and deal with.
FWIW, I have to tell you that in all my years of driving, I've never seen such an extreme example of vile bumper stickers. But I can deal with it - even if I was the one being slandered.
We put up with some pretty vile preaching by extremists right here in our country - including Muslim extremists. For example, ever heard some of the sermons by Louis Farrakhan? I think a few such bumper stickers are pretty much in the same league. You either allow it all, or you decide to make it go underground. I'd rather hear it all.
But if we're going to ban such bumper stickers, then as far as I am concerned Yankee bumper stickers also have to go! They offend me deeply. Fair is fair!
The reality of it all is that such an individual doesn't have a lot of lattitude to operate in our society. The vast majority of organizations in this country are so politically correct and anti free expression that such an individual couldn't even think of joining any group worth belonging to. I'd get fired for driving that vehicle into my company parking lot. It's legal, but... No job is a bit tough. Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen just got fined, suspended, and has to undergo sensitivity training all because he called a spineless reporter (slammed him but never shows up at the ballpark) a "fag." Yep... Not much in the way of "free speech" there.
This disabled veteran is probably either independently employed or so badly messed up that he's on permanent disability and essentially a ward of the state. As the song says, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." It's sad when you think about it.
- Bill
-
Willy
http://www.nsm88.com/articles/ernst_zun ... orted.html
No Bill it is what it is.You and Ian are blowing this out of proportion. We deported the same guy your country did. There is a difference between deporting someone who is not a national and has been linked to racist activities for decades and driving a few K's over the limit.
I'm not dissing America or your way of life guys. I'm happy where I am and have no plans to join your society, so no need to rush out and change things on my account.
I've enjoyed your comments on free speech. Much to consider , I understand your viewpoint better now. There is much merit in what you have posted.
I still however see this individual as someone who is promoting hatred. I feel he needs to be reined in and sorted out. I'm pleased that in my country this individual might be noticed by the legal system and get the attention they might require.
I have no problem with my country having a different set of rules or my having slightly different values than you two blokes.
No Bill it is what it is.You and Ian are blowing this out of proportion. We deported the same guy your country did. There is a difference between deporting someone who is not a national and has been linked to racist activities for decades and driving a few K's over the limit.
I believe it would be when: 1.) they discover your not a Canadian. 2.) When it's proven in a court of law you have be promoting the concept that the public at large should harm these people. You then would be sent back to America were apparently this behaviour is acceptable.When does Big Brother decide my hatred of those things extends to people involved in those things and move to deport me
I'm not dissing America or your way of life guys. I'm happy where I am and have no plans to join your society, so no need to rush out and change things on my account.
I've enjoyed your comments on free speech. Much to consider , I understand your viewpoint better now. There is much merit in what you have posted.
I still however see this individual as someone who is promoting hatred. I feel he needs to be reined in and sorted out. I'm pleased that in my country this individual might be noticed by the legal system and get the attention they might require.
I have no problem with my country having a different set of rules or my having slightly different values than you two blokes.
-
Willy
Your right Bill, we wouldn't box up a vet or a national and ship them to a new country to live. I believe the crime carrys a maximum of 2 years in prison.
here's some information on the hate crime legislation:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... e_hate.cfm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm
Ian and you might think Orwell is alive and well in Canada, But I think it's a damn good law!
BTW nuking Mecca might be considered an act of genocide
here's some information on the hate crime legislation:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/r ... e_hate.cfm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm
Ian and you might think Orwell is alive and well in Canada, But I think it's a damn good law!
BTW nuking Mecca might be considered an act of genocide
-
JimHawkins
- Posts: 2101
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 12:21 am
- Location: NYC
Better to let these "extremists" express themselves as they wish than force them to keep it a secret through legislation. This way you can identify them and where they stand, rather than being surprised later.. 
Be nice if all kinds of crazies advertised this way, be much easier to spot 'em, arrest 'em or just stay away from them..
Be nice if all kinds of crazies advertised this way, be much easier to spot 'em, arrest 'em or just stay away from them.. Shaolin
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
M Y V T K F
"Receive what comes, stay with what goes, upon loss of contact attack the line" – The Kuen Kuit
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Where we differ, Willy, is not in how we feel about the speech or the thought. Where we differ is in what to do about it. Do you think the government does a better job than the average citizen and countless organizations this individual might wish to join?Willy wrote:
Ian and you might think Orwell is alive and well in Canada, But I think it's a damn good law!
Do you think Ozzie Guillen will be calling anyone a "fag" again in public after what the commissioner of baseball just did to him? And what is the effect of the public seeing that punishment? Ozzie's a bit of a hero, after all (WRT Major League Baseball). As the old Chinese saying goes, "If you want to scare 100 monkeys, kill one." I like the economics in that scenario. We have better things to do with our tax dollars than waste them prosecuting people suffering from depression.
It certainly might!Willy wrote:
BTW nuking Mecca might be considered an act of genocide.
But... Who nuked Mecca, Willy? Where's the smoke?
Big difference.
Oh my, such vile hate! Should we prosecute Charlie for suggesting these illegal acts?Charlie L wrote:
Goes around comes around. Looks to me like a crip wanting to get taken
out. That's not that uncommon.
With 6 to 8 million Muslims in America, I'm sure there might be one as
dysfunctional as this guy. Who knows maybe he's in an eighteen wheeler
right on his arse and reading this #####. Pretty easy to kill a man when your
driving a rig that’s plus 40 ton. Hell you hardly feel the bump when your
wheels crush them. Driver error, it's the companies fault they made me
work long hours with no rest. I dozed off and ran over that tiny SUV.
I'm not even Muslim but I'd be willing to give the guy a virgin for his
efforts. Is America proud of this kind of American? No wonder people
fly planes into your facilities .
Let's suppose we outlaw saying "Nuke Mecca!" And let's suppose one day technology goes to the point of being able to decipher what people are thinking. Should we pass a law not allowing folks to think it? Because if we did, the jails in the world wouldn't be able to hold everyone guilty of this crime. And the same could be said for "Nuke NYC!", "Nuke the Pentagon!", etc., etc. And I guarantee you that if you saw bumper stickers uttering such things, you would be slow to protest - if at all. But it's the same, right?
The freedoms we hold dearly here are a funny thing. Our Bill of Rights made a big deal about illegal search and seizure. We allow people a lot of lattitude in their own homes, and make it very difficult for the government to snoop in them any time they want. Even when the law suspects people are doing bad things, our Constitution prevents law enforcement from going in without due cause. Why? Because the founders experienced what it was like living in a totalitarian environment where individuals constantly were treated like criminals.
People self-regulate pretty well. Yes, there are bumps and hiccups along the way, but then we're all human and we all have bad days (or longer...). There's a need for law and law enforcement, but there's no need to make a government more important than the people who it should be serving.
And IMO there's no need to extract the kind of money it would take to prosecute every nasty utterance made by the Average Joe. We have things to do with that money that would yield a far better return. Think about that next time you pay your tax bill.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Society sorting things out - without the government wasting tax dollars.
- SI.comCHICAGO (AP) -- Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen reacted angrily during Friday night's postgame news conference when asked about a report on ESPNdeportes.com that quoted him as saying he would not undergo the sensitivity training that commissioner Bud Selig ordered.
Guillen was fined Thursday and ordered by Selig to undergo training after an obscenity-laden tirade against Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti in which the manager used a derogatory term that describes someone's sexual orientation.
When asked about the report after the game, the manager responded with a lengthy diatribe in which he said he first needs to take English classes "to understand what they're talking about" and threatened to "start being nasty with the media" if they continued to ask questions about it.
"It's a really uncomfortable situation for me," Guillen said after the White Sox beat Houston 7-4. "I don't need this job. It's hard every day. ... If someone tries to play games, I'm sorry, but you've got the wrong guy."
Guillen got up and walked out of the interview room. A few minutes later, he said through a team spokesman he will undergo the training.
Guillen has said he did not mean to offend homosexuals and has apologized for using the word. But he stands by his criticism of Mariotti, who was not at U.S. Cellular Field when Guillen chastised him.
Mariotti had criticized Guillen's handling of pitcher Sean Tracey. The rookie could be seen distraught in the dugout last week in Texas after Guillen became angry when the White Sox didn't retaliate for catcher A.J. Pierzynski twice being hit with pitches. Tracey was sent to the minors.
Guillen was also angry with Mariotti for calling for the Cubs to fire manager Dusty Baker and replace him with TV broadcaster Bob Brenly.
Guillen was back in the dugout Friday after serving a one-game suspension, a punishment for reliever David Riske hitting St. Louis' Chris Duncan with a pitch Tuesday night after two White Sox were plunked. Riske is appealing a three-game suspension.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I read the links to the Canadian laws--and I'll pass.
First, while I was given the hypothetical of whether I wanted to be exposed to anti gay speech (oh, and believe me, I received insults and threats and one assault, virginia >> massachusetts), the law doesn't even work for me, and the link explains the antigay speech is ok when it's religious. It wouldn't work the other way, so if I criticized the church with the same force, it would NOT be permitted.
Honestly, who can't deal with the case in question? Someone ran some statements FROM THE BIBLE in a paper and was charged wtih a crime--is concealing the reality of what's written in the bible so important to some fragile emotional states that it has to be forbbiden by law? THAT is a police state! So what if he was eventually exonerated--it tells me there is a real chilling effect on speech. You are thinking about writing something and then you recall what that other guy went through for quoting the Bible--spent all this money, name dragged thru the mud, etc. Not a good precedent.
The law also specifies that speaking on a telephone in a public place will get you jailed. Someone walks by while you're angrily relating some feelings to a likeminded friend on the line? Bam, jail. Lovely.
I also worry about this: the speech has to "in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace." That's GOOD what scares me is that the gov't actually thought someone printing Bible quotes counted. Shows, to me, that the government was acting on what bugged them rather than reading their laws before taking action. Is the US immune? No, and certainly not under Bush--we've got the Plame disclosure, our wiretaps, wriggling out of the Geneva convention, Bush lawyers advising the administration on how to stretch the law where they want instead of advsiing them to follow it, guantanmo bay (new movie coming out detailing the stories of two prisoners released after two years of "persuasion" there never having been charged with a crime), and so on.
But give em an inch and they take a mile right?
First, while I was given the hypothetical of whether I wanted to be exposed to anti gay speech (oh, and believe me, I received insults and threats and one assault, virginia >> massachusetts), the law doesn't even work for me, and the link explains the antigay speech is ok when it's religious. It wouldn't work the other way, so if I criticized the church with the same force, it would NOT be permitted.
Honestly, who can't deal with the case in question? Someone ran some statements FROM THE BIBLE in a paper and was charged wtih a crime--is concealing the reality of what's written in the bible so important to some fragile emotional states that it has to be forbbiden by law? THAT is a police state! So what if he was eventually exonerated--it tells me there is a real chilling effect on speech. You are thinking about writing something and then you recall what that other guy went through for quoting the Bible--spent all this money, name dragged thru the mud, etc. Not a good precedent.
The law also specifies that speaking on a telephone in a public place will get you jailed. Someone walks by while you're angrily relating some feelings to a likeminded friend on the line? Bam, jail. Lovely.
I also worry about this: the speech has to "in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace." That's GOOD what scares me is that the gov't actually thought someone printing Bible quotes counted. Shows, to me, that the government was acting on what bugged them rather than reading their laws before taking action. Is the US immune? No, and certainly not under Bush--we've got the Plame disclosure, our wiretaps, wriggling out of the Geneva convention, Bush lawyers advising the administration on how to stretch the law where they want instead of advsiing them to follow it, guantanmo bay (new movie coming out detailing the stories of two prisoners released after two years of "persuasion" there never having been charged with a crime), and so on.
But give em an inch and they take a mile right?
--Ian
Ya we're an unruly mob up here in Canada just lookin' for someone to say the wrong thing. (Where the hell is my pitchfork!!!) 
I think most Americans (at least the ones who even know where Canada is) have a misconception about our country and its laws. Not to worry though, Canadians obviously don't understand American law either....
I think most Americans (at least the ones who even know where Canada is) have a misconception about our country and its laws. Not to worry though, Canadians obviously don't understand American law either....
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I don't think it's a misconception so much as it's a difference of opinion.
* We have different health care systems.
* We have different legal systems.
* We have different tax rates.
Let's also not forget that Canada is a net energy exporter, and the U.S. is a net energy importer. Don't think that doesn't change the equation. Trust me - there are a lot of people here who wish our economy wasn't so dependent upon oil from some of the most unstable and politically repressive places in the world. Familiarity, as they say, can breed contempt.
Several hundred years from now, these discussions about Islam and The Middle East will be under the radar of general concern. Something else though will most-assuredly take its place. C'est la vie.
- Bill
* We have different health care systems.
* We have different legal systems.
* We have different tax rates.
Let's also not forget that Canada is a net energy exporter, and the U.S. is a net energy importer. Don't think that doesn't change the equation. Trust me - there are a lot of people here who wish our economy wasn't so dependent upon oil from some of the most unstable and politically repressive places in the world. Familiarity, as they say, can breed contempt.
Several hundred years from now, these discussions about Islam and The Middle East will be under the radar of general concern. Something else though will most-assuredly take its place. C'est la vie.
- Bill
-
Norm Abrahamson
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Mansfield, MA USA
- Contact:
Mary:
I was gone for a few days and didn't see your post suggesting a bumper sticker may have contained an insult against a specific person: the owner of a market. If so, that still is not a crime. If I was to put a bumper sticker on my car stating: "Mary S. is a vicious killer" I could not be arrested. However, I could be sued by you for libel.
There have been instances in this country where the rights of unpopular people to air unpopular and hateful opinions has been enforced by the courts. For example, KKK and Nazi party members petioned to hold a march through Skokie, Illinois. That town was chosed by the marchers because Skokie had a large number of holocaust survivors. The courts ruled that the Nazis/KKK had the right to march, regardless of the fact that their views could provoke a breach of the peace. The march took place and I believe there was no violence. (This occurred more than 20 years ago.)
Personally, I prefer that this type of speech is allowed to be aired publicly. Free speech encourages examination and debate of differing views. Minds can be changed. Empty ideas and thoeries eventually fall apart under scrutiny. Think about it, the ignorance aired on the bumper stickers of a pick up truck in Kentucky has sparked this multi national discussion about:
1. Whether such speech should be legal;
2. The proper response to reading such speech;
3. Whether the views espoused in the bumper stickers are valid;
4. Whether the owner of the truck suffers from PTSD;
5. Whether PTSD or service in Iraq excuses or explains the behavior of the truck owner.
Free speech is a foundation that supports other important freedoms, and I shudder every time an attempt is made to curtail it.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
I was gone for a few days and didn't see your post suggesting a bumper sticker may have contained an insult against a specific person: the owner of a market. If so, that still is not a crime. If I was to put a bumper sticker on my car stating: "Mary S. is a vicious killer" I could not be arrested. However, I could be sued by you for libel.
There have been instances in this country where the rights of unpopular people to air unpopular and hateful opinions has been enforced by the courts. For example, KKK and Nazi party members petioned to hold a march through Skokie, Illinois. That town was chosed by the marchers because Skokie had a large number of holocaust survivors. The courts ruled that the Nazis/KKK had the right to march, regardless of the fact that their views could provoke a breach of the peace. The march took place and I believe there was no violence. (This occurred more than 20 years ago.)
Personally, I prefer that this type of speech is allowed to be aired publicly. Free speech encourages examination and debate of differing views. Minds can be changed. Empty ideas and thoeries eventually fall apart under scrutiny. Think about it, the ignorance aired on the bumper stickers of a pick up truck in Kentucky has sparked this multi national discussion about:
1. Whether such speech should be legal;
2. The proper response to reading such speech;
3. Whether the views espoused in the bumper stickers are valid;
4. Whether the owner of the truck suffers from PTSD;
5. Whether PTSD or service in Iraq excuses or explains the behavior of the truck owner.
Free speech is a foundation that supports other important freedoms, and I shudder every time an attempt is made to curtail it.
Sincerely,
Norm Abrahamson
