Already gave you countries from which he has been banned, and also a country he lost a hell of a lot of money in. The point was, you claimed your own definition of hate speech applies; it doesn't. Hate speech definitions are dependent on each country, so are the legal penalties.
David Irving arrested in Austria
Beady
Philosopher
OK, that puts it into perspective. There are places where 73 votes would be alarming.
Wrong, very. I've been happily logically refuting arguments and assertions that come my way. BTW, FYI, although I now live in Europe, I am not a European, though I love how pointing out the limitations of free speech gets rhetoriticians' panties in a twist.
Let's get going:
Oh puh-leeeze, what is an "unassailable truth" supposed to be? What you've given us is only an opinion, unless you want to try claiming it as an objective truth, in which case I really have fun.
All ethics and opinions are subjective, don'cha know?
Wrong again. The physical act is mere speech, and any limitation on it is a limitation of public speech.
Wrong in claiming they are not crimes. Penalties in a civil suit cannot be enforced unless a controvention of law is committed. Thus, civil suits penalise what is illegal.
Since it was a knife at the front, a thick collar would have done zero. Mind you, the bloke who did it regretted his actions. My response was like here to the point and effective.
,Maybe you should take your own advice? Just a suggestion.
I am not "European brick", neither European nor brick, and (mistakenly) abusing debate opponents constitutes a form of practical logical fallacy.
Pure nonsense. BTW, I love how you describe it as implicitly all Europeans. Tsk tsk, you should learn more about the place -- it's big and contains many diffferent people and peoples, all with diffferent POV's.
Wrong again. What is it with the blanket ascription of one single POV to a whole people? Very silly. Get out into real life.
Oh, and Cleo? Gurdur? Are you entirely sure that teaching evolution or talking about contraception are really, truly against the law anywhere in the U.S.? If you find such laws on the books, are you confident that they’ve ever been enforced? And what was the outcome of the appeals? Just asking, because frankly you sound more than anything like “Them bloody Americans, always pissin’ ‘n moanin’ about how bad they’ve got it.”
Take a look at what is enforced in school curricula in some places in the USA, and get back to us.
Oh, and BTW, answer my above post to you.
Frankly, you sound very wrong, especially when you ascribe one single POV to an entire people. Now answer my above post to you.
Beady
Philosopher
This thread looks like it's starting to degenerate. I'm outta here.
Well heck (does that sound testy? sorry, sorry! I don't want to offend a dangerous character like Gurdur), let's change my favorite maxim to read thus:
"Nobody is good enough to tell anybody else what he can publish."
If you recognize equality before the law, you have to concede that no man is so much your better that he can tell you when you may speak and when you must be silent. Similarly, you must concede that you aren't so much his superior that you can rightfully silence him.
I have a much longer essay that I've been saving up for Cleopatra, but danged if she hasn't joined the light side and made it obsolete.
"Nobody is good enough to tell anybody else what he can publish."
If you recognize equality before the law, you have to concede that no man is so much your better that he can tell you when you may speak and when you must be silent. Similarly, you must concede that you aren't so much his superior that you can rightfully silence him.
I have a much longer essay that I've been saving up for Cleopatra, but danged if she hasn't joined the light side and made it obsolete.
No, it doesn't, but when you claim all Americans would say one particular thing, or all Europeans have one single POV, it sounds very stupid.
Sorry, sorry! Don't want to upset you.
What a terrible 'argument'. Sorry, sorry, I don't mean to be brick!
But all you are claiming in effect is that no-one has the "right" to make laws that control anyone else's behaviour at all, which is a big pity for you, yours not being a view accepted by many at all --- anywhere.
But sorry if logic upsets you.
An informed electorate makes laws; these control behaviour; public speech is a form of behaviour. Cheers! Next try?
Thanks, Sackett, you're right. However, I am beginning to suspect that people like Gurdur are precisely the reason Germans and Austrians have to forbid some forms of political speech. Some people will be nazis about practically anything.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Yes you can.
In the US the debate is over what is taught in the public schools, but any private citizen can teach whatever they like outside the public schools.
Oh dear. Contravention of Godwin's Law, banalization of terms into meaninglessness, no argument, no logic, simply the sound of panties in a twist, I guess some people simply cannot handle the free speech of disagreement. Tsk!
You have to list me the countries he got imprisoned. Being expelled from a country as a persona non grata is a political thing.
This doesn't change much the image though. Evolution is a scientific theory and scientific theories are spread via the educational system.
However, this still constitutes practical censorship in public schools, which is the point. IOW, you have there cases of censorship.
BTW, are you aware that the USA, at least till very recently, had a general ban on members of the communist parties visiting the USA (as tourists)? So for example, if you were a member of the Australian Commnist party, you could be refused a tourist visa, and in fact this did happen. Dearie me, seems like censorship or something.
Uh, no I don't (see previous points), and no it isn't per se -- being declared persona non grata is a legal thing for the most part, and was in this case of Irving.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
BTW, are you aware that the USA, at least till very recently, had a general ban on members of the communist parties visiting the USA (as tourists)? So for example, if you were a member of the Australian Commnist party, you could be refused a tourist visa, and in fact this did happen. Dearie me, seems like censorship or something.
Indeed.
Does censorship in the US make censorship in Europe any less real?
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Even in Kansas, evolution is still taught in the public schools.
Not the point.
A couple of people have tried claiming in effect no censorship exists in the USA.
Quite obviously, they're wrong.
They've also tried claiming censorship is necessarily always a bad thing, which is just too bad for them, especially once we get onto showing snuff films in junior schools.