Nazi's in America ....

[Sparrow]

We currently have our own problems over here dealing with Monica Blair, sorry I mean Tony Lewinski, (well you get the idea) and his intrusive control freak government.

Ps, Vince, it wasn't just Americans who waded ashore in Normandy.

Under cover of the smoke from the twin towers I find myself in a country here CCTV is a good thing, habeas corpus is provisional, I will be required to have an ID card!!!!!!!, there are proposals to suspend jury trial, Winston would have felt he had come home.
I suspect the US constitution is the same as ours, not worth the paper it’s written on.
It was just Americans in the film!

PS Vince, very succinct

 

[Andy K]

I suspect the US constitution is the same as ours, not worth the paper it’s written on.

There is one other major difference. The US actually has a constitution. We don't. In fact, constitutionally speaking, England does not exist as a recognised country within Britain.

 

[bmattock]

>> And although the US government was willing to go to war, the populace had made it quite clear that after WWI, they wanted nothing more to do with the affairs of Europe.<<

Perhaps foolishly, I'll jump into this.

U.S. public and congressional opinion was strongly against U.S. involvment in World War II, though the Roosevelt administration and bipartisan internationalists constantly sought ways to support anti-fascist forces. I'll remind Bill that the United States declared war on Japan, not Germany, following the Pearl Harbor attack. This was immediately followed by a declaration of war By Germany Against the United States.

I agree. Is this not what I said? I cut to the chase - the American public's mood at the time immediately preceeding our entry into WWII was pretty much isolationist. The politicos and the military understood very well what was at stake, but they could not just commit the USA to war without a provocation that the public would understand and react to. This feeds the notion that we knew or even engineered the attack on ourselves by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor - but we can leave that bit out - it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.

The U.S. public has been ambivalent about European and global affairs ever since, U.S. bipartisan leadership less so. After the war, the United States oversaw the rebuilding of Germany, Austria and Italy, instituted the Marshall Plan to rebuild the economies of Western Europe, created NATO (of which several former East Bloc nations are now members) and maintained a commitment of more than one-third of a million troops in Europe from the Korean War to the disolution of the Soviet Union. Only now, U.S. troops commitments on Continental Europe are falling below 100,000 for the first time since the Americans waded ashore at Normandy in June 1944. The United States maintains a militarily significant presence in the Balkans -- for the purpose of promoting peace in a manner conceived by Roosevelt's Fourth Freedom, Freedom from Fear, which was actually very early thinking on an international peacekeeping organization to monitor and enforce disarmament. This eventually became the U.N., though it has not lived up to its idealistic beginnings. The United States plans to maintain 70,000 troops in Europe for the indefinite future and is using NATO as one of several mechanisms for modernizing and inspiring formerly communist-dominated republics that wish to join. The United States is also engaged in a very recent grass-roots campaign to promote dialogue between minority Muslim communities in Europe and the United States to help drown out the voices of anti-Western hate groups of religious militants who are actively recruiting among economically and socialy disconnected young people in both countries. Europe and the United States represent a block of shared values, ideals and cultures, as well as a great deal of shared pain. Not unlike a large family, where the members bicker and undercut one another but still remain united by deep, uncuttable bonds.

Also true. And ever since, we (the USA) have been alternately excoriated and lauded for intervening in the affairs of other nations. We're everybody's favorite whipping boy.

For the record, Roosevelt's Four Freedom's speech pre-dates U.S. entry into World War II by 11 months and was part of an attempt to convince Congress to keep funding armaments for anti-fascist forces. Here's the relevent exerpt:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want — which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants - everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear — which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

To that new order we oppose the greater conception — the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear."

The context of this is also important. The "Freedom from Fear" speech echoes Roosevelt's First Innaugural, in 1933. When the nation was in very real danger of economic and social collapse, Roosevelt famously took office saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself" so that overcoming fear and panic became a trademark thought of his administration.

And as a final personal note, I do wish current leaders of several nations could stress a similar thought that free people can meet and overcome hostile forces without resorting to fear, paranoia and panic.

I appreciate the expansion on what Roosevelt meant by his speech. I think that makes it clear that he was not delineating a new civil liberty. However, again, we face the daunting question - is the USA the policeman of the world, or not? Frankly, I don't want us to be. But that also means standing by while Serbs kill Bosnians, or vice versa. It means never having invaded Iraq. And so on.

It seems the world currently would like the USA to engage in a little isolationism, but that means they solve their own bloody problems - even when thousands or milliions are dying.

But "Freedom from Fear" does not, as Lance would prefer, detail a new liberty which can be used to suppress free speech that he doesn't care for.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Under cover of the smoke from the twin towers I find myself in a country here CCTV is a good thing, habeas corpus is provisional, I will be required to have an ID card!!!!!!!, there are proposals to suspend jury trial, Winston would have felt he had come home.
I suspect the US constitution is the same as ours, not worth the paper it’s written on.
It was just Americans in the film!

PS Vince, very succinct

This is the fight we wage in the USA. Some feel that the Constitution is a 'living document' and should be interpreted in the spirit of the times. Others feel that the Constitution is a bedrock, an anchor, and that although the words are subject to interpretation about what the Founding Fathers meant, it is not subject to alteration to suit the public mood - without a Constitutional Amendment.

My fear is that if we go with 'fashion' we do in fact through the Constitution away to suit our mood of the moment. That's the biggest part of what makes me a strict Constitutionalist.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[lmd91343]

I agree!

I meant they are less effective (fewer murders, lynchings, and cross burnings) than just a few years ago. They have killed and expressed the intent to do more. The threat is real.

Lance,
Although some of the KKK have become "less vocal", your saying their "back is broken" may give some the impression they no longer exist or have become powerless.
Speaking from personal experience they are very much around (though quieter) and working at bigotry daily. "Lest we forget...." goes for them too.

 

[lmd91343]

Bill,

Err, this was about lynching and the KKK. Did you not follow the link?


Quote:
Originally Posted by lmd91343
Andy,

You are right on. This is our American tragedy.


Bill quote:
Nonsense. Most Americans were not aware of the atrocities being perpetrated by the Nazis against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally retarded until after we had entered the war. And although the US government was willing to go to war, the populace had made it quite clear that after WWI, they wanted nothing more to do with the affairs of Europe.

Lance Quote:
This is not only tragic for the lives destroyed, but shameful for us Americans who stood idly by.


Bill quote:
Again I say nonsense. First of all, "us Americans" doesn't include a very large part of the living population - my own father was too young to have fought in WWII, and he's passed away himself now. I was born in 1961. I do not wear any hand-me-down shame. Second, I'd like to know where the world decides they want us as Americans. Half the time, they scream at us to get involved, take a stand, stop an atrocity - the other half of the time they scream at us for doing so. Should there be some European Minstry of Telling America What to Do?
End:

 

[lmd91343]

Bill,

The posts were about the KKK. They have committed horrors in your lifetime. What measures were done to protest the victims? Why did you focus on the Holocaust?

And your facts are wrong about that too! There were many articles in papers from the NY Times to the Detroit Free Press. Steven Wise lead large publicized marches. The St. Louis episode received much attention. Check out Deborah Lipstadt's book Beyond Belief. Dr. Lipstadt was involved in the recent highly publicized Holocaust trial in London. (She won!) She is formerly the executive director of the Brandies institute and is currently at Emory University.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lmd91343
Andy,

You are right on. This is our American tragedy.


Bill:
Nonsense. Most Americans were not aware of the atrocities being perpetrated by the Nazis against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the mentally retarded until after we had entered the war. And although the US government was willing to go to war, the populace had made it quite clear that after WWI, they wanted nothing more to do with the affairs of Europe.

Lance Quote:
This is not only tragic for the lives destroyed, but shameful for us Americans who stood idly by.

Bill:
Again I say nonsense. First of all, "us Americans" doesn't include a very large part of the living population - my own father was too young to have fought in WWII, and he's passed away himself now. I was born in 1961. I do not wear any hand-me-down shame. Second, I'd like to know where the world decides they want us as Americans. Half the time, they scream at us to get involved, take a stand, stop an atrocity - the other half of the time they scream at us for doing so. Should there be some European Minstry of Telling America What to Do?
End:

 

[lmd91343]

Bill,

You keep ignoring the fact that these two groups have expressed the desire to murder and have also murdered! And they have murdered within living memory.

Lots of idiots and groups run around all the time expressing the desire of murder. But they have not done so.

The KKK and the Nazis say they want to kill and have done so! How does that compare to yelling fire in a theater?

What I am saying is this - in the USA, we don't fear words - not enough to suppress them for their content. Lance, et al, like to say that "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," ie, no liberty is absolute. David Rose (ducttape) would argue that just as you cannot yell fire in a theater, you can't speak this sort of hatred - it is not protected speech.

But even in the theatre example - no one is restrained ahead of time based on their prediliction to yell 'fire'. First one must commit the crime before they can be punished. And in that example - which is a good one - a 'right' is being limited for one and only one reason - it represents a direct and understandable infringement on a different liberty - the right to life itself. The connection drawn between the action (yelling fire) and the result (stampede towards the exits, panic, people trampled and killed) is one that a 'reasonable and prudent' man might make with very little examination of the issue. It's a straight line. If I strike a match, I'll get a flame.

In the example of the KKK or the neo-Nazis marching and demonstrating - one would have to make the 'reasonable and prudent' straight line connection between their words, and actions they advocate, such as killing Jews or blacks. If I yell fire - there is GOING to be a race to the exit. If someone yells "Jews and blacks are inferior! They're mud people! They want to take over the world and sleep with yer wimmin!" that is not going to cause an immediate attack on Jews and blacks.

In other words, the exercise of freedom of speech by the KKK or the neo-Nazis does not represent an infringement of anyone else's freedoms - so it cannot be considered speech that can be infringed or suppressed. The courts have consistantly held this to be true.

Lance has taken the additional step of insisting that we have a right to freedom from fear - so it is THIS right which is being infringed - so now we can get on with the suppressing of the KKK and neo-Nazi exercise of their free speech.

But this so-called 'right' is not a defined right, and even if he was correct that it has become 'ingrained in our tradition' (which I contend it has not), you can't take it to court. It does not exist in a legal sense.

Yes, the KKK is dangerous - any hate group is. I fear those who would usurp all of our liberties to keep those on the fringes silent more than I fear those on the fringes.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Socke]

Should there be some European Minstry of Telling America What to Do?
End:

Which Europe? And then who in this europe?

 

[bmattock]

Which Europe? And then who in this europe?

Exactly. My point was that in Europe, nations seem to go in cycles - first demanding that the USA 'get involved' in problems happening in Europe, and then demanding that they not.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

You keep ignoring the fact that these two groups have expressed the desire to murder and have also murdered! And they have murdered within living memory.

I'm not ignoring anything. Murder is a crime. Arrest those responsible and bring them to justice. Plotting murder is a crime. Arrest those responsible and bring them to justice. Joining the KKK or neo-Nazis is not a crime. Expressing hatred toward other races is not a crime. Using 'whatever means necessary' to shut them up is inherently dangerous to all our rights.

And you keep saying "within living memory." What the heck is that supposed to mean? Yes, I understand that there are those alive today who were alive when the Holocaust took place, when the Klan did lynchings. DOES THAT MAKE IT DIFFERENT? If Catholics murdered Jews in Spain a few centuries ago, are Catholics murderers? It is no longer 'within living memory,' so I guess I can rest easy that you won't come after me, right? But what if it had been? Is that your cut-off point - within living memory? So when the last WWII era survivor dies, then neo-Nazis will be OK again?

Get over yourself.

Lots of idiots and groups run around all the time expressing the desire of murder. But they have not done so.

Members of Operation Rescue have murdered. Shall we stop all abortion protestors from speaking in public? Shall we sue them, make their names public, and so on?

The KKK and the Nazis say they want to kill and have done so! How does that compare to yelling fire in a theater?

It does not compare. When someone yells 'fire' in a crowded theater, everyone within earshot stampedes for the doors. A reasonable and prudent person would conclude that people will be trampled, people will be killed in the madness that ensues.

This is a very specific set of circumstances. I can stand outside my house and yell "Fire" all I like - no one is trapped in a building, no one is likely to race to their death or trample anyone else.

The organizations (and there are many, as you know) that call themselves the KKK and various neo-Nazis have killed. And the police, FBI, and other law enforcement groups investigate those crimes, the various governments prosecute the offenders.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

The posts were about the KKK. They have committed horrors in your lifetime. What measures were done to protest the victims? Why did you focus on the Holocaust?

There have been no lynchings anywhere near me in my adult lifetime. In any case, why would I "protest the victims?" I'm not against the victims. And what would you have me do? Go murder me some Klan members? That'll fix the problem.

And your facts are wrong about that too! There were many articles in papers from the NY Times to the Detroit Free Press. Steven Wise lead large publicized marches. The St. Louis episode received much attention. Check out Deborah Lipstadt's book Beyond Belief. Dr. Lipstadt was involved in the recent highly publicized Holocaust trial in London. (She won!) She is formerly the executive director of the Brandies institute and is currently at Emory University.

Yes, there were Americans who wanted to go to war, and even some who were aware of what was happening to German Jewry. The majority of the USA did not want war, and did not know (or did not care to know) what was happening in the internment camps.

 

[bmattock]

I agree!

I meant they are less effective (fewer murders, lynchings, and cross burnings) than just a few years ago. They have killed and expressed the intent to do more. The threat is real.

The threat is real. The reaction - to infringe on their right to freedom of speech, is unacceptable, as it opens the door to infringing on anyone's right to free speech whom you (or anyone) do not like.

You seem to think that all that will happen if you quash the rights of the KKK or the neo-Nazis is that they will go away. But others will use your tools, your methods, and your agenda - to destroy their personal boogie-men. And who are those people? Are they also 'bad people' like the KKK and the neo-Nazis? Maybe so. Maybe not. But you'd shove open that door to suit yourself, to protect yourself from fear. I strongly disagree with your methods.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[lmd91343]

Bill,

Your distortions of my positions are inappropriate at best. You are intent to make a straw-man out of me and my positions to promote and contrast your views. You have also personally insulted me several times. Your conversation has degraded terribly. There is no prior restraint in this country. What you are doing is legal, but not moral.

A couple of your insults rise far above ANY normal discourse. When comparing me to and calling me worse (to be feared more) than Nazis is as insulting as any words can be. You are comparing me to a group that started a World War, killing millions of combatants and civilians and inflicting the Holocaust where millions more were systematically dehumanized and slaughtered.

Not only have you insulted me, but you have devalued those lost in the Nazi horrors by your comparison. You have compared me to those who dehumanized, gassed and cremated my cousins. Think about that!

There has been nothing more evil than what has been perpetrated by the Nazis. You have compared me to them. In addition you have compared me to the KKK. I won't even go there. But it is a very similar path.

I can't imagine that my stated support of the Anti-Defamation League, Museum of Tolerance, and the Simon Wiesentahl Center could drive you to do this. You complained about my "flogging" you with a link to the ADL.

I don't agree with your methods - I think you're dangerous to our liberties, and I'm more worried about that than I am about the Klan.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I fear you a lot more than a buch(sic) of idiot Nazis in stupid uniforms.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

I don't know if calling you on your behavior will get me thown off this list. I don't know if your insults toward me will get you banished. But I do know that compairng someone to a Nazi is something that one needs to be called on.

 

[Sparrow]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

It is a duty to speak where and when you please, the conventions of your society should not constrain anyone; argue the detail as you will but the isolationists and the racialists are wrong! the fundamentals are wrong! and you Bill are parochial.

 

[bmattock]

Bill,

Your distortions of my positions are inappropriate at best. You are intent to make a straw-man out of me and my positions to promote and contrast your views. You have also personally insulted me several times. Your conversation has degraded terribly. There is no prior restraint in this country. What you are doing is legal, but not moral.

I made no attempt to publish my views other than to respond to yours and those who have posted here. I agree that there is no prior restraint in this country.

Let's not pretend that you did not say you were in favor of prior restraint. You did. You said, "This is the land of the free. We are supposed have a marketplace of ideas. However, there are some things so evil, so repugnant that they are actually destructive to civilization. Similarly, it is destructive to the community of heatergoers when someone yells "Fire!". For those handful of gruesome things, the ethical consequences are clear and so is our expected behaviour."

Did I misunderstand you? Did you not say that those things which are 'so evil' rise beyond their right to free speech, that they must in fact be suppressed?

A couple of your insults rise far above ANY normal discourse. When comparing me to and calling me worse (to be feared more) than Nazis is as insulting as any words can be.

I did not, nor would I do so. I said that I fear you and those who would impose sanctions on civil rights in order to stop hate groups from speaking MORE than I fear them. I did not say you were were than them, I did not compare you to them. Settle down.

You are comparing me to a group that started a World War, killing millions of combatants and civilians and inflicting the Holocaust where millions more were systematically dehumanized and slaughtered.

No, I did not. And the neo-Nazis in America today did not do so, either. They espouse those sickening views, but they did not do it. In any case, I compared you to neither of them. I said I fear your desire to quash civil liberties more than their potential dangers.

Not only have you insulted me, but you have devalued those lost in the Nazi horrors by your comparison. You have compared me to those who dehumanized, gassed and cremated my cousins. Think about that!

At no point have I done anything like that. I will not apologize for what I have not done.

There has been nothing more evil than what has been perpetrated by the Nazis.

That's another argument. I don't think you can quantify evil as 'more' evil or 'less' evil or 'the worst evil.' The death of millions by Pol Pot's regime comes to mind. The purges of Stalin. Each horrible, terrible, and worthy of remembering and trying never to repeat. But I will not play the game of "The Holocaust was the worst evil ever perpetrated and you are not allowed to compare it to any other evil, ever." That's nonsense. It was horrible, it was evil. As far as the 'most evil,' well, whatever.

You have compared me to them. In addition you have compared me to the KKK. I won't even go there. But it is a very similar path.

I have not compared you to them. That is a product of your own imagination.

I can't imagine that my stated support of the Anti-Defamation League, Museum of Tolerance, and the Simon Wiesentahl Center could drive you to do this. You complained about my "flogging" you with a link to the ADL.

No, I complained about you flogging a link to your favorite tinfoil hat brigade as I recall. A 'cut-n-paste' diatribe about a political party you obviously have a problem with, and I refused to take your bait. I didn't complain about being flogged.

I don't know if calling you on your behavior will get me thown off this list. I don't know if your insults toward me will get you banished. But I do know that compairng someone to a Nazi is something that one needs to be called on.

I would not compare you to a Nazi. You need to calm down and reread what I said.

But one last time, in very generic terms: I feel that those who would use and abuse the legal system in the USA to achieve the goal of silencing any other group, regardless of how 'evil' that group happens to be, is more dangerous that the group they seek to silence. I fear them more than those they hate.

And I do that for one simple reason - self-interest. Today, you hate the KKK and the neo-Nazis. Fine, I think they suck too. We're in agreement. But if you are allowed to stop them from speaking because they are so evil, tomorrow it will be you or someone just like you who decides that Catholics are evil and need to be silenced. Or homosexuals. Or Jews. And so on. I won't agree with your methods. Silencing freedom of speech is wrong, period. You keep saying you agree - and then you demonstrate how you don't agree, when it comes to the KKK and the neo-Nazis. They're 'different' because 'they're so evil.' Get over yourself.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.

Did I say not to speak out against the KKK or the neo-Nazis? I did not. You (and Lance, and Mr Rose) have as much right to speak out against them as they do against you.

And has the KKK or the neo-Nazis 'come' for anyone?

They demonstrate. They protest. They march. They distribute hate literature. They sometimes burn a cross or do other illegal behavior that gets them arrested, tried, and convicted.

But when they are not breaking the law, they have the right to speak.

It is a duty to speak where and when you please, the conventions of your society should not constrain anyone; argue the detail as you will but the isolationists and the racialists are wrong! the fundamentals are wrong! and you Bill are parochial.

Yes, speak out. I never disagreed with that. But Lance and especially Ducttape took great pride in how they 'shut down' the KKK and the neo-Nazis - and how? By suing them into oblivion, by urging that protest, demonstration, and marching permit fees be raised to impossible amounts, that they be forced to pay for every expenditure of public money required to keep the peace during their rallies, by 'exposing' their membership and by passing 'anti-mask' laws to prohibit them from belonging to secret societies.

These are all, to the best of my knowledge, legal. They have achieved their aims. And we are to be thankful?

Now that permit fees are impossibly high - no one can get a permit to parade or demonstrate. And if one group doesn't have to pay the fee and another does, that's discrimination and that is illegal. Same for police protection payments. Same for nuisance lawsuits. Same for laws designed to stop people from belonging to secret societies. You've kept everyone equal - and harmed your enemy - by hurting the rights of everyone to speak in public.

You say we all have the right to speak our minds. Presumably that means the KKK and the neo-Nazis too. But Lance and Ducttape say no, they are too evil. They must be stopped from speaking.

So where is your freedom of speech? If you can stop the 'evil' ones, you can stop me. Or they can stop you. And so on.

Freedom can be painful. It means that yes, even the most dispicible in our society have the right to speak out. And I'm parochial because I believe in that?

Parochial: "Narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial."

I say everybody gets the right to free speech. How is that parochial?

Lance and Ducttape say some groups are too evil to be allowed to speak freely. How is that NOT parochial?

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Sparrow]

The rights of the US constitution are not a law of nature, they are a 200 year old treason that went almost unchallenged it is not a yard stick to measure the world by, some things are wrong! however it’s good you can concentrate on the detail I suppose.

 

[bmattock]

The rights of the US constitution are not a law of nature, they are a 200 year old treason that went almost unchallenged it is not a yard stick to measure the world by, some things are wrong! however it’s good you can concentrate on the detail I suppose.

I am a US citizen. I live in the US. US laws apply here. You would prefer that the laws of some other nation should hold sway here?

A law of nature? No. However, interestingly, the do address the concept of individual liberties in a way that no other governments I am aware of do - by not stating what rights an individual has, but rather by stating what rights the federal government is prohibited from infringing upon. In fact, the US Constitution does go the extra step in saying "that they (meaning us) are endowed by their Creator with certain Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." So in fact, if one subscribes to the point of view that the Almighty is nature - then yes, the US Constitution is "a law of nature." I don't quite go that far, but it is an interesting point.

A 200 year old treason? Yes, it is that. We revolted, we threw off the rule of Britain and declared ourselves free, and then we made that declaration a reality by whupping England's butt not once but twice. At least, that's how they teach it in our schools.

Now, over there in England, haven't you guys also had a few wars to remove one king, install another, and so on? Seems like a bit of treason going on there, too, eh?

A yard stick to measure the world by? I don't apply our laws to other countries, but since I agree with our US Constitution as written, I apply my sense of 'right' and 'wrong' to my opinions of other nations. As do you, I suppose. Life is like that, we see the world through the color of our own experiences, beliefs, and prejudices.

But let me guess - your vision is perfect, mine is not. Of course.

Some things are wrong? Yes, some things are wrong. What Hitler did was wrong. What Stalin did was wrong. What Pol Pot did was wrong. Drinking tea instead of coffee is wrong. I don't disagree with that.

I presume you are referring to freedom of speech. Yes, that's a pesky little bugger.

All I'm saying is that in the USA, where US law holds sway, our misbegotten, unacceptable old rag of a Constitution says that the government cannot infringe on the right of citizens to speak freely. And that means good people and bad people. About nice things and about hateful things. And if we don't like it, we don't have to listen.

Some things are just wrong - yes - but in my opinion, infringing on the right of another to speak, regardless of how 'wrong' they are, is also wrong.

So we agree on two groups and their total wrongyness. Yes, they're awful. So let's put a stop to them speaking. Fine.

And tomorrow? What's wrong then? What's evil then? And who decides? What if we all don't agree? Do we take a vote?

At various times in the US, there have been political parties formed that were anti-Catholic, anti-Masonic, and even anti-German. They thought that the Catholics, Freemasons, and Germans were 'wrong' too. You know, 'some things are just wrong'. So they wanted to destroy THOSE groups and their right to speak.

I'll wait while you explain to me how their defintion of 'some things are just wrong' is different from your definition. Because I see them both the same way. Infringe one person's right, infringe them all.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Sparrow]

Bill
You can argue the detail as you will, a constitution made by man is by definition flawed, some things are wrong if you cannot see that you are too conditioned by your environment, sorry I disagree with your view.

PS sorry Bill gallery is closed, I’m just passing time

PS the extremes in any society need to be opposed, good men need only keep quiet and that, I trust you are a good man?