Those of us with libertarian tendencies can occasionally become so obsessed with pointing out America’s flaws that we fail to consider the alternative. Sometimes, we get tunnel-vision on issues of property rights, social liberties, and taxation. Sometimes, it seems like we’re actually LESS free than those crazy socialist Europeans and that we should all be lining up to renounce our citizenship and move to Canada (less debt, stronger currency) or Switzerland (better gun rights) or Hong Kong (less regulation, less taxation).
But every once in awhile, you run across a news story that firmly establishes the one area of freedom in which the good ol’ US of A is still #1. Freedom of speech.
Our friends in merry olde England are always among the worst offenders of violating this fundamental natural right. Recently, a 21 year old student was sentenced to 56 days in prison for “offensive tweets.” Allegedly, they were racist. Of course, we don’t really know, because they won’t re-print them.
Most British people I argue with on the Internet regularly defend the practice of outlawing speech that is “offensive.” Most of them don’t seem to appreciate the inherent insanity of having a judge decide what speech is “offensive” and what isn’t. In any case, I would like to take this time to formally warn all of my British colleagues on the Internet: If you ever say anything that I deem offensive, I plan on alerting your government so that you can suffer the full consequences of your actions under the laws you so regularly defend. Luckily for you, I am a white, heterosexual male, so it is unlikely that anything you say about me would POSSIBLY be declared offensive by a English judge. So ask yourselves Brits… do I feel lucky? Well, do ya? Chap!
(No seriously I literally did. While the whole "omg Muamba might be dead" thing was going on I was all over twitter and one of the guys I follow linked me to him, trying to get people to report the guy)
(and yes your every opinion and article is worthless and you are worthless though I'm sure you knew that already)
nintendogirl1 posted... *Waiting for SMuffin to declare that England is a communist country for not allowing people the freedom to beat other people to a pulp*
tweeting =/= beating
-- SephirothG, channeling awesomeness from Mershiness. The Resurrection
Yeah this is pretty stupid. People who support stuff like this don't seem to realize how utterly unenforceable the whole "don't allow offensive speech" mindset is. It's literally saying that you believe a few people in the government should be allowed to decide which emotions are and are not legitimate.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
After all, I rather doubt there's going to be much banning of any commonly accepted philosophies and religions even though some people would claim (and would be 100% serious) those are just as offensive as anything else.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #014 After all, I rather doubt there's going to be much banning of any commonly accepted philosophies and religions even though some people would claim (and would be 100% serious) those are just as offensive as anything else.
There was a Canadian pastor who was arrested for reading the Bible in public because it was offensive to gays.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: SmartMuffin | #015 There was a Canadian pastor who was arrested for reading the Bible in public because it was offensive to gays.
Yeah my country is dumb as hell about stuff like this. Although at least most of our cases tend to have some attached accusations of other things that never get reported (like someone will get accused of saying racist **** in addition to something else he was doing, and then the media never mentions the part where he allegedly ranted at someone for being Chinese)
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: DeepsPraw | #002 I've always been in favor of racists, sexists and other bigots being stripped of their human rights. They are subhuman afterall.
Yeah a key trait for being an absurd radical feminist is thinking you're the only one that deserves any rights.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg 'I am the master of your whole keep. I am the pastor, flock ya like sheep.'
If "throw racists in jail" is considered acceptable, then you also have to consider "throw Christians in jail" acceptable (or "throw non-Christians in jail", or both; amazing how ridiculous this gets when you try to respect the "right to not be offended" of everyone, it's almost like it's not a good idea!)
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
Panthera posted... If "throw racists in jail" is considered acceptable, then you also have to consider "throw Christians in jail" acceptable (or "throw non-Christians in jail", or both; amazing how ridiculous this gets when you try to respect the "right to not be offended" of everyone, it's almost like it's not a good idea!)
No man, they just want to get rid of the bad guys.
Who are the bad guys?
No idea, ask the government.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo Now this is entertainment!
From: SmartMuffin | #024 Throwing people in prison for saying something you don't like is hardly a "new" concept, you know?
True, I'm just saying it's a shame how anti-progress you seem to be. There comes a time where "omg the first amendment" gets kind of outdated by the times.
I don't believe in the silly slippery slope idea that "you have to allow 100% freedom of speech all the time, or else you are letting people decide what is and isn't OK to say". It should be clear to anyone with a basic level of social skill what is and isn't "OK" to say. The "negative" is basically that less and less stuff will become acceptable which is, in the end, slippery slope fallacy.
Me pointing out the differences between black people and white people in a clear and objective manner is not racist and should not be perceived as racist. Me saying Fabrice Muamba is a stupid n who deserves to die because of that demonstrably is, and should not be acceptable in modern society. I don't want to live in a society where that can be said with no legal repurcussions. I welcome the jailing of that kind of person; in the scheme of things 56 days is a slap on the wrist but it's a decent enough punishment. The "opinion" that a black person deserves to die purely because of that should not be tolerated. We need to move past that kind of thing
-- If you don't want people to constantly make fun of and criticize topics like these, maybe you should not make them total garbage. - Ed Bellis
XIII_rocks posted... I don't believe in the silly slippery slope idea that "you have to allow 100% freedom of speech all the time, or else you are letting people decide what is and isn't OK to say". It should be clear to anyone with a basic level of social skill what is and isn't "OK" to say. The "negative" is basically that less and less stuff will become acceptable which is, in the end, slippery slope fallacy.
We do need 100% freedom of speech. The slippery slope is a very real concern because of how plausible a downward spiral is.
I joked about the Kung Fu Fighting mess, but that's a serious problem. Any politician in the US would kill for that type of power. You could shape a law that doesn't allow for "offensive speech" to mean literally anything you want.
-- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo Now this is entertainment!
XIII_rocks posted... True, I'm just saying it's a shame how anti-progress you seem to be. There comes a time where "omg the first amendment" gets kind of outdated by the times.
So glad we won the war against you guys. Twice.
-- SephirothG, channeling awesomeness from Mershiness. The Resurrection
From: XIII_rocks | #030 I don't believe in the silly slippery slope idea that "you have to allow 100% freedom of speech all the time, or else you are letting people decide what is and isn't OK to say". It should be clear to anyone with a basic level of social skill what is and isn't "OK" to say. The "negative" is basically that less and less stuff will become acceptable which is, in the end, slippery slope fallacy.
Every single discussion of morality in the context of religion disagrees with you. Some of the central aspects of Christianity (morality being derived from God, people "deserving" damnation if they aren't "forgiven" via faith in Jesus) are obviously extremely offensive to people who disagree with them (the "forgiveness" aspect is exactly what you describe as not being acceptable - "everyone who is outside this group should suffer"). Conversely, to a Christian, if I attempt to explain how a non-Christian system of ethics can exist and try to convince people why I don't believe in Christianity, I am trying to turn people to evil and make them suffer eternally. Thus, Christianity must be banned, as must anyone who disagrees with it (or rather, the expression of any position on Christianity must be banned)
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #035 Every single discussion of morality in the context of religion disagrees with you. Some of the central aspects of Christianity (morality being derived from God, people "deserving" damnation if they aren't "forgiven" via faith in Jesus) are obviously extremely offensive to people who disagree with them (the "forgiveness" aspect is exactly what you describe as not being acceptable - "everyone who is outside this group should suffer"). Conversely, to a Christian, if I attempt to explain how a non-Christian system of ethics can exist and try to convince people why I don't believe in Christianity, I am trying to turn people to evil and make them suffer eternally. Thus, Christianity must be banned, as must anyone who disagrees with it (or rather, the expression of any position on Christianity must be banned)
Christians don't believe that "everyone who is outside this group should suffer". They believe that everyone who is outside their group WILL suffer. And arguing what a non-Christian is trying to do from a Christian perspective is absurd logic.
The only way to avoid that kind of scenario is to simply decide either that some people don't deserve the same rights as others (I am part of ethnic/religious group Y and therefore deserve to not be offended, you are part of ethnic/religious group Z and therefore do not deserve to not be offended), or to try to enforce which emotions count (your feelings only count if you're offended by the right things, if you're offended by something accepted than the government is entitled to say that your feelings do not exist). Either one is a massive problem. You cannot apply the "right to not be offended" consistently without logically justifying oppression.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: XIII_rocks | #030 Me pointing out the differences between black people and white people in a clear and objective manner is not racist and should not be perceived as racist. Me saying Fabrice Muamba is a stupid n who deserves to die because of that demonstrably is, and should not be acceptable in modern society. I don't want to live in a society where that can be said with no legal repurcussions. I welcome the jailing of that kind of person; in the scheme of things 56 days is a slap on the wrist but it's a decent enough punishment. The "opinion" that a black person deserves to die purely because of that should not be tolerated. We need to move past that kind of thing
Scorned, ridiculed, or (like arseblog wisely suggested) ignored? Sure.
Thrown in jail? Absolutely not.
--
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg 'If you've ever doubted me you don't have a clue, I'm here to show the world.'
From: Panthera | #027 If "throw racists in jail" is considered acceptable, then you also have to consider "throw Christians in jail" acceptable (or "throw non-Christians in jail", or both; amazing how ridiculous this gets when you try to respect the "right to not be offended" of everyone, it's almost like it's not a good idea!)
It's not "throw racists in jail". It's "throw people who are openly racist and offensive to people". That's kind of a bizarre leap to make on your part; I'm sure a lot of people occasionally think racist thoughts, and that's "fine" - there's nothing wrong with thinking something, because you have a chance to rationalize.
But when that thought is translated from brain to mouth - or fingers, in this case - then you're forcing what you have said onto society. And like I said, we are past the stage where that should be tolerated.
I don't think I'm EVER going to stop being surprised by seeing XIC and ngirl defend this stuff.
It just goes to show you that for all the commonality the "western world" shares, American and European cultures are utterly irreconcilable on major key issues.
I don't ever want to go to England if it means potentially being jailed for saying something unkind.
--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/
From: nintendogirl1 | #036 Christians don't believe that "everyone who is outside this group should suffer". They believe that everyone who is outside their group WILL suffer. And arguing what a non-Christian is trying to do from a Christian perspective is absurd logic.
The concept of salvation is entirely based around the fact that people *do* deserve damnation because we're sinners and God can't tolerate sin, and the only way to avoid that fate is to be forgiven.
And no, it isn't absurd logic (although it's also just a hypothetical, I'm sure we can come up with some other thing about me that some Christians would be offended by) - if you're a Christian, and you see me trying to convince someone there isn't good reason to believe in Christianity (AKA you see me explaining what I believe and why), you see me leading people to damnation.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
From: XIII_rocks | #039 It's not "throw racists in jail". It's "throw people who are openly racist and offensive to people". That's kind of a bizarre leap to make on your part; I'm sure a lot of people occasionally think racist thoughts, and that's "fine" - there's nothing wrong with thinking something, because you have a chance to rationalize.
But when that thought is translated from brain to mouth - or fingers, in this case - then you're forcing what you have said onto society. And like I said, we are past the stage where that should be tolerated.
but what counts as "openly racist and offensive to people"? Do our jokes in the "If Link were black" topic count, or does it need to be more extreme? Less? Who gets to decide?
I don't think I'm EVER going to stop being surprised by seeing XIC and ngirl defend this stuff.
You shouldn't be. It's widely accepted that American is more right wing than any other western country in the world.
It just goes to show you that for all the commonality the "western world" shares, American and European cultures are utterly irreconcilable on major key issues.
Yep.
I don't ever want to go to England if it means potentially being jailed for saying something unkind.
From: XIII_rocks | #039 It's not "throw racists in jail". It's "throw people who are openly racist and offensive to people". That's kind of a bizarre leap to make on your part; I'm sure a lot of people occasionally think racist thoughts, and that's "fine" - there's nothing wrong with thinking something, because you have a chance to rationalize.
It's not a leap at all, considering it's just a short hand expression of the exact same concept - rather obvious from the fact that I ended the post in question by saying that your position requires any *expression* of these believes to be banned, not the existence of those beliefs.
But when that thought is translated from brain to mouth - or fingers, in this case - then you're forcing what you have said onto society. And like I said, we are past the stage where that should be tolerated.
Ironic, considering that you are the one who is in favour of the government literally forcing onto society a certain standard for what is and is not "offensive".
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny