bmattock
Veteran
Sparrow said:
I'd agree with that. I never said the US Constitution is not flawed. It is imperfect. But it is our law, and I like just fine.
What are the some things that are just wrong? Nazis and KKK? I agree with you. Allowing them the same freedom of speech that I have? I disagree. But please tell me - what are the 'some things' that I'm just not getting?
Quite alright, I'm scanning film.
I trust that I am a good man. But no, the extremes need not be opposed. All that needs to be opposed is what one is in opposition to. Would you oppose the extremely good? THAT is an extreme - just on the other end.
However, I will presume that you mean that the extreme evils of our society need to be opposed. Absolutely. I agree. I am against XYZ - aren't we all? But I would disapprove of a law preventing members of XYZ from having a pro-XYZ march down the main street of any US town or city. And I am against ABC? You too? Great. And I despise Do-Re-Mi. Oh, you say you think they're great. Hmm. Now what do we do?
Remember, 'some things are just wrong'. So when we, as good men, disagree on what is 'just wrong', what then? Do we flip a coin, heads we kill 'em, tails we give 'em a medal?
Punish people for the evil that they do - not the evil that they say.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Sparrow
Veteran
Free speech should not allow for the incitement of a third party to break the law, it should not allow someone to gain an advantage through the promulgation of an untruth, it should not allow for the promotion of a illegal act.
We teach our kids history in high school so they don’t have to make the same mistakes as their forbears, are you suggesting they should only be allowed to use that tool after the event?
We could save a lot of their time, and our money by allowing XYZ to go in and speak freely on their agenda instead.
If XYZ decides to march through ABC’s town the rest of us unfortunately have no choice but to take a view, and I contend that view should be informed by a notion of “right and wrong” if you cannot do that I suppose a good place to hide is behind your constitutional rights, I don’t get that option we never got round to writing one down.
We teach our kids history in high school so they don’t have to make the same mistakes as their forbears, are you suggesting they should only be allowed to use that tool after the event?
We could save a lot of their time, and our money by allowing XYZ to go in and speak freely on their agenda instead.
If XYZ decides to march through ABC’s town the rest of us unfortunately have no choice but to take a view, and I contend that view should be informed by a notion of “right and wrong” if you cannot do that I suppose a good place to hide is behind your constitutional rights, I don’t get that option we never got round to writing one down.
bmattock
Veteran
Sparrow said:
Free speech does not. There are laws against things like 'incitement to riot.' However, the law has to consider the reality of the 'incitement' actually happening. For example, if I stand on the courthouse steps and yell, "Kill Sparrow!" to the crowd, are the likely to immediately return home and begin plotting your demise? No, so I have not incited to action. However, if I spend an hour whipping a crowd up into a frenzy, telling them how awful you are, and suddenly you hove into view and I continue with "And there he is, kill him," a reasonable and prudent person might surmise that you might be in some real danger. That's incitement and it is illegal.
I think we'd have to put all of our advertisers and politicians in prison. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but ... impractical.
I'm missing something here. They should be allowed to use *what* tool?
Freedom of speech does not mean 'equal time'. The schools do not have to (and I'm guessing do not) invite the KKK or the neo-Nazis in to speak.
Well, I disagree. I think that when a hate group like the KKK marches through town, it is a great time to discuss with kids what freedom means, and why it means that we have to put up with speech we dislike and abhor so that we might know that freedom to speak for even the most hated means freedom for us all.
And whose notion of 'right and wrong' should be used? Yours, mine, some other guy's? As I've said - we might agree - in fact we do - that the KKK and the neo-Nazis are terrible, bad, awful people - evil in fact.
But you know, I am pretty much against beer. And so the Russian Beer-Drinkers Political Party? I'm thinking they should not be allowed to speak if they come to the USA. And I don't much like the British Monster Raving Loony Party, either. So if I get to be Mayor, I'm not going to allow them to speak, either.
"Right and Wrong" are moral values often shared by many in a given society. But even those societies would stagger you or I at times - honor killings of women who have been raped, for example; female circumcision; stoning adulterers to death. Those are values that are "right" according to many if not most in the societies where they are practiced.
And times change values in countries. Once upon a time, we here in America thought that slavery was just fine. Yes, some were against it, but enough were for it that it prevailed in the southern states. Slavery was, if not good, at least not bad. So what then? Speakers against slavery should be prevented from speaking?
The concept that human rights are, as nearly as possible, absolute, protects everyone. When a neo-Nazi or a Klansman has the right to speak their mind openly, no matter how much I despise hearing it, then MY right to speak still exists. If I restrict their right to speak freely, then it becomes only a matter of time before someone takes away my right to speak because they disagree with my message.
Everybody wants freedom, but they tend to equate freedom with peace and prosperity and happiness. Freedom is often painful.
I hate flag-burners. I am glad I live in a society that permits it.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Andy K
Well-known
bmattock said:
You'll have a hard time doing that, considering the US MRLP representative has now been elected to the Presidency. Twice.
Last edited:
Now I know you all are having a nice conversation here on our photography web site and your arguments are interesting, well stated and to a certain degree informative. But I sure wish Jerome Brown was here.
http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/2005/02/true-hero-of-past.html
http://allspinzone.blogspot.com/2005/02/true-hero-of-past.html
Sparrow
Veteran
Sorry bill you don’t win an argument by volume, our “western” society rightly protects its freedoms but there is little point in a society defending a personal freedom at the cost of our collective freedom
As a society it is better to oppose an evil at the start rather than wait until there’s a tank on your lawn. I expect history to be the tool that allows us to identify that which needs opposing
As a society it is better to oppose an evil at the start rather than wait until there’s a tank on your lawn. I expect history to be the tool that allows us to identify that which needs opposing
Andy K
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Pity King George didn't think that way when the American War of Insurrection began...
bmattock
Veteran
Andy K said:You'll have a hard time doing that, considering the US MRLP representative has now been elected to the Presidency. Twice.
Are you telling me that it would not be a good thing to have a President who was not permitted to speak? Harrumph.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
Sparrow said:
First, what 'collective freedom' is lost by allowing freedom of speech to hate groups?
Second, I contend the opposite. Without individual liberties, there is no 'collective freedom'. A free society is built upon free individuals.
You equate 'oppose' with what I've been discussing, which is not the case at all.
I 'oppose' the KKK. I 'oppose' the neo-Nazis. By that, I mean that I am against them and all that they stand for. I would never vote for one for office, never donate time or money to assist them. They are evil. I think it is great that groups who oppose them also speak publically, educate the public, hold rallies, support marches, and so on.
I do not 'oppose' the right of the KKK or the neo-Nazis or ANYONE to speak their minds freely. I am not afraid of their words, only their actions.
I believe you are misusing the term 'oppose'. What you are proposing is not 'opposition' but 'suppression'. And yes, governments have used the lens of history, through their own warped minds, to identify that which needs suppressing.
Can you think of some examples where that has gone awry? I can, need I repeat them here?
Free societies are built by free citizens. I reject your notion that you or I can justly determine who is 'good' and who is 'bad' and filter out only the bad to protect society. It can't be done, mate, even if we wanted to. And not that many want to - we all have hidden agendas. I believe Henry VIII had a minor aversion to Catholics. All done in the name of 'good' mind you.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Sparrow
Veteran
He probably did, however you can’t oppose geography can you
Andy K
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Geography had very little to do with it. Geography did not stop the colonialisation of India, much of Africa, Australasia... In our defence, we did have our hands full fighting the French at the time. Btw, you mostly owe your Independence to the French, without their assistance the colonial rebels would have had no chance.
bmattock
Veteran
rover said:
All I can see is that this proves you don't 'get it'. Defending the right of a racist group to speak in public does not mean one is a racist - as I am not. If I read your words correctly, "wish Jerome Brown was here," you're saying that you wish a giant black man would show up and intimidate me into shutting up.
OK, fine, you win.
According to the story in your link, Jerome Brown is no hero. If an anti-abortion protestor had done the exact same thing at a pro-choice rally, he or she'd have been arrested. And Jerome Brown should have been.
Tell me, should it be illegal to walk up and punch out a Klansman? If not, why not? They're evil, after all. In fact, it should be legal to just murder them on sight. If they don't have the right to speak freely in public, then what rights should they have? Any? None? Some?
And when the group YOU belong to is declared 'evil' even though you don't think so, don't complain. Take your medicine like a man. You wanted suppression of speech based on the criteria you decide - so when the worm turns, accept it.
But hey, you wanted Jerome Brown to come here and intimdate me into shutting up, but you need not have bothered. Just let me know - you just did - and I'm off.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Sparrow
Veteran
in yorkshire???????????
Andy K
Well-known
Sparrow
Veteran
Bill you may need to educate me now but I can see nothing in your constitution that allows for the rights of the individual to attract to a group, I will defend the rights of the individual to speak freely with you, but will oppose a group of such likeminded individuals imposing their views on others at every opportunity I can find. You seem to be confusing the two, is that a legitimate position to hold?
Last edited:
Andy K
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Sorry Sparrow, didn't look at your location before I posted, lol! You, of course, owe your independence to Edward I... :
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Bill
You are right in claiming freedom of speach should apply to every one equally no matter how hateful and wrong that speach may be. It is painful to listen to these groups and their disgusting ideas but you had better hope that society in general has enough common sense not to take such prattle seriously. You are again right that this is done through education, either in a school system or by parents at home. If any group does violence they should be punished under law at that time. The ulitimate in eradicating groups that you don't like before they can do harm is called genocide. I really hope nobody wants to become what they hate most by being that pre-emptive. It is a good thing that we can easily photograph these groups demonstrating in plain view as it keeps everyone concious that they do exist. If they were underground they would be harder to deal with and the threat level would be perceived as being deminished, out of sight out of mind. Just a view from a place sometimes referred to as Kanuckistan.
Nikon Bob
You are right in claiming freedom of speach should apply to every one equally no matter how hateful and wrong that speach may be. It is painful to listen to these groups and their disgusting ideas but you had better hope that society in general has enough common sense not to take such prattle seriously. You are again right that this is done through education, either in a school system or by parents at home. If any group does violence they should be punished under law at that time. The ulitimate in eradicating groups that you don't like before they can do harm is called genocide. I really hope nobody wants to become what they hate most by being that pre-emptive. It is a good thing that we can easily photograph these groups demonstrating in plain view as it keeps everyone concious that they do exist. If they were underground they would be harder to deal with and the threat level would be perceived as being deminished, out of sight out of mind. Just a view from a place sometimes referred to as Kanuckistan.
Nikon Bob
Sparrow
Veteran
Thought not…it seems I have neither freedom or independence, we still be for parliament round these parts sir
Andy K
Well-known
Sparrow said:
As we are in these parts Sir, the spirit of Wat Tyler lives on.
And one day we shall have our own Parliament
Last edited:
This is what I think of when I think Parliament!!!
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/parliamentfunkadelic/
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/parliamentfunkadelic/