Should free speech be curtailed?

[Pontus]

http://166.70.44.66/2004/Jul/07032004/Saturday/180637.asp

"Swedish Pentecostal guilty of incitement

A Swedish court has sentenced a pastor belonging to the Pentecostal movement in Sweden, Ake Green, to a month in prison, under a law against incitement, after he was found guilty of having offended homosexuals in a 2003 sermon. Green had described homosexuality as "abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society." Soren Andersson, the president of the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights (RFSL), said on hearing Green's jail sentence that religious freedom could never be used as a reason to offend people.
-- Ecumenical News International"


While I support civil rights for all I wonder if this is going too far. Would we want such laws in the USA? I know Kerry supports full rights to gay citizens but would he want current hate crime legislation to cover this? I'm just curious as to what people think.

[Dookus]

1. It wouldn't happen here

but Europe has a different view. Free Speech is not absolute in most places - Germany prohibits promotion of Nazism and Scientology, France prohibits outright racism, etc. etc.

They have a very different history regarding hate groups than we have here. I'm not saying they're right, just that they have their reasons.

[Kellanved]

13. not quite

Scientology is - of course - not banned. As to Nazi Speeches, those are allowed within certain limits.

The thing is that the German constitution, like the French, is self-defending. The constitution includes legal means to actively go against anyone threatening the constitution.

This includes:
"history"
-being against Democracy is unconstitutional

"No Tolerance for enemies of Tolerance"
-no single philosophy is exclusively right
-Pluralism is a principle of the state.

"self-abandonment of Democracy is undemocratic"
-nobody has the right to waive his rights
-duty to following generations
-irrevocability of such a decision

"active clauses"
-Enemies of democracy are not protected by all basic rights
-unconstitutional political parties can be banned
-Articles 1 to 20 (Federalism, Basic Rights, Representative Democracy, Social Security) of the basic law can not be changed


Scientology stepped into that "trap", as do most hate-groups.



Is it a limit to free speech? Maybe; but considering the history of the Weimar Republic, it sure is a good idea.

[izzie]

17. This happened once when I went away to school

We were told to look down on Jews as dogs, and we all walked out of the church. It was a Methodist church and guess you should never go to a church just because it is near. We, in this school, never went back. He was free to say it and we wee free to walk out.I had a friend who was Swiss and she said if you say you are a member of a church the state taxes you 10 percent and it goes to churches. So most people just go to church but do not become members. Interesting I think. It maybe why we look more like church people than the people in Europe.

[Tweed]

46. It wouldn't happen here?! Ever heard of "1st Amendment Zones"?

The next step is obvious. Even the DU doesn't allow free speech.

[DieboldMustDie]

2. As odious as I find his views...

I must support his right to freely express them. If he's in any way advocating violence, that's another matter.

[WindRavenX]

3. Agreed

He was just sprewing trash, but even that must not be taken away from people.
BTW, why is scientolgy speech bared from Germany? :shrug:

[MissAnnThrope]

6. Scientology

Isn't banned in Germany. Germany refuses to recognize it as a religion, as it's a pretty well known fact the only reason it ever started calling itself a religion was for the tax breaks. Germany considers it a cult and a dangerous cult at that. They're right. Just look at things like Operation Snow White where they tried to set up Paulette Cooper for writing an article that criticized them.

The thing in Germany is, Scientologists aren't allowed to hold most government jobs, especially where any sensitive material will be handled. This is the fault of the cult itself and it's own antics.

Religions don't have set donations that run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Religions don't tell people they have to leave the flock when they can no longer pay. Scientology does this though.

Germany is right to label it a cult. To not allow it tax exempt status. To not let Scientologists get their hands on sensitive government documents. Let's face it. If this cult didn't have so many Hollywood types as members, our government would have gone Waco on them years ago.

[WindRavenX]

8. question:

What exactly do they believe in? What about them makes them a cult? I've heard of scientology (Tom Cruise is one, I think), but other than that, I know NOTHING of their beliefs.

[ForrestGump]

10. Here you go

All you need to know, and then some:

http://www.xenu.net/

Its 'beliefs' are, to speak plainly, cracked, as was its deranged founder. In reality, the organization's prime belief is that it can make lots of money from gullible people...always a safe bet. They're scum.

[yankeedem]

39. From xenu.net

Here is a simple test to tell if a group is a cult or not. Ask yourself these questions about the group:


1.Does the group use tricks, lies or excuses to get members and to keep them?
2.Does the group say that it is "better than all other groups", and is it organised so that people can't complain, discuss, vote, criticize, or change the group?
3.Does the group claim that the founder knows all the answers, and tolerates no discussion or questioning of his or her teachings?
4.Does the group say that nothing is more important than to get more money, people or anything else into the group, and that this is more important than honesty or friendship or families, maybe because it is such an emergency that the world must be saved right away?
5.Is the money collected used only a few "special people instead of for the members or the general population?

http://www.xenu.net/archive/FAQ/answer_for_kids.html

Sounds like the Neocons to me.

[MissAnnThrope]

11. You Wouldn't Believe Me If I Told You...

... But it all comes down to this, the OT III. OT stands for Operating Thetan. This is the document that got so many people in so much trouble. See, to accept this dogma, you have to be properly brainwashed. It takes a RonBot at least $100,000 to get to this point of the training.

An evil galactic overlord named Xenu decided to solve overpopulation of a good number of planets by sending a few billion souls to Earth (in spaceships that look just like DC-10s) packaged in anti-freeze, planting H-Bombs in Hawaiian volcanoes and blowing them up. Then they went to processing plants, were they were gathered on cosmic flypaper and implanted with all the world's history. Nothing is true. It is all an implant. Then these Thetans were set free, but, because these spirits had no bodies, they attach themselves to humans. They're now called Body Thetans. The idea of Scientology is to get rid of all your BTs. That is, after you've spent enough money to learn about them. When you finally rid yourself of them, you drop the body. In real terms, that means die. L. Ron Hubbard had a hardcore drug problem by the time he wrote that.

Now, the trouble with this is, he wrote it right before plate tectonics became an accepted idea in the scientific community. Before that, the biblical explanation of the Earth being as it was, is and ever more shall be was pretty much universally accepted. According to Hubbard, these implant facilities were in Las Palmas and Hawaii and it was 95,000,000 years ago. The science of geology tells us these volcanoes aren't nearly that old. But to a true believer, science is wrong, L. Ron was right.

I wish I could lead you to the actual manuscript, but as Scientology is a litigious cult, they've sued people to take the pages down. Because what I just told you will cause pneumonia in those who haven't done all their Scientology courses. Or so they say. I never did a Scientology course and I first read the OTs and NOTs in 1995. I must have had a delayed reaction, as I didn't get pneumonia until 2001, during a massive flu epidemic. Amazing I survived, considering I had knowledge I wasn't trained for.

A great place to start if you want to read about it yourself is http://home.snafu.de/tilman/">Tilman Hausherr's webpage. Being German, the courts haven't made him take anything down. Yet.

[Pepperbelly]

20. the pity is that Hubbard may have stumbled onto some pieces of ...

the Big Truth, then decided to turn those nuggets into a money-making scheme for himself.

That doesn't invalidate those nuggets. For example, the engrams are, IMO, a fair preliminary notion ... an interim model, for the internal mechanism of the mind. Several other notions withstand criticism as well.

But he had to turn those nuggets into this.

:(

[MissAnnThrope]

26. But...

Anything of value he came up with, he stole from Alistair Crowley. Who for the most part, stole from others. A good bit of the "tech" comes from Hubbard's time hanging out with Jack Parsons.

If you read Incident 1 in Scientology compare it to the Gnostic creation story. It's a shortened version. But Hubbard didn't steal, because everything is an implant from those days were Xenu made all those BTs.

I always liked this Crowley quote: "Apparently Parsons and Hubbard or somebody is producing a moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."

[Pepperbelly]

32. regardless of who came up with it ...

the notions of engrams goes a long way toward explaining the operational aspects of the mind. Others have taken that notion and built far more substantial tautological abstractions from it that have more value but I need to acknowledge those bits of information that get to the basis for us and our personalities.

But what Hubbard did ... reminds me of what we used to say in the Navy about our put-upon cooks: they could turn good food to shit without eating it first.

[Nevernose]

22. Body Thetans? I thought it was indigestion...(n/t)

n/t

[MissAnnThrope]

28. I think it was gas...

From all the rice and beans they eat in Sea Org.

[bigbillhaywood]

41. MissAnnThrope. Sounds like a rollerderby stage name. nt

[MissAnnThrope]

54. Roller Derby?

Does that still exist? My name is actually a play on words. Well, a single word.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. You might want to fix that link...

to http://home.snafu.de/tilman/

[MissAnnThrope]

27. Thanks

I didn't even realize it had done that.

[billyskank]

31. More info on scientology

http://religion.krishna.org/Articles/2002/05/002.html

[MissAnnThrope]

34. Wow!

I thought everyone had taken down OT III! At least, all the critics were forced to take it down. This is a great find. I'm surprised the site hasn't been threatened for having that up.

[Aidoneus]

38. here, see Rotten.com's bio of LRH

fucking hilarious, actually.. it's hard to believe he has followers, but, then, so did Marshall Applewight (also has a Rotten bio, fyi)..

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/cult/l-ron-hubbard/

[bigbillhaywood]

45. Cult: newer, smaller organization based on nonsense. Religion: older,

larger organization based on nonsense.

[MissAnnThrope]

56. That All Depends

While many people will put all their faith in the Pope, Scientologists who don't put all faith in the "tech" and L. Ron Hubbard and who put their families or own lives before Scientology are told they have overts and withholds against the org and they have to spend massive amounts of money for auditing on the E-Meter. Basically a crude lie detector. Catholics are supposed to follow the Pope, but considering the number who are calling for reform in the church, who aren't being harassed by the church for their views, I would hesitate to call it a cult.

Let's take the Catholic Church again. They don't stage mass weddings or force people to live a certain way. Then look at the Unification Church. People marrying people the church picked out for them. In Madison Square Garden, no less. Viewing the Rev. Moon as the second coming of Jesus. Etc. There is a difference.

Check out Isaac Bonewit's Cult Evaluation Frame. This is pretty good for telling if a group is dangerous or not. It's a check list of common expected behavior in cults.

[MissAnnThrope]

4. Not To Play Devil's Advocate, But...

... While I don't share his views and I think he's more than a bit paranoid and probably in the closet himself, The Bible doesn't exactly come out for homosexuality. I don't even take what The Bible says about it too seriously, as when Jesus said, "it is finished," this is supposed to refer to the laws of the Old Testament. Jesus himself never came out against homosexuality and The Bible says "he knew man." Most scholars take this to mean he knew men in the biblical way.

The only reference to it in the New Testament comes from Paul, who, if you ask me, was a major pervert with lots of sexual hangups.

However, as Pentecostals are very, um, rigid in their views, while I think the Pastor needs to get a grip, he is allowed to preach against homosexuality, as his religion says it's wrong and those who practice it will never see the Kingdom of Heaven.

The current hate crime legislation doesn't cover hate speech. It covers bodily harm against people based on their religious beliefs, gender, race, color, disability or sexual orientation. It does nothing to curtail free speech, nor should it. One cannot say, I believe in free speech, unless I find it offensive. Either you're for it or against it. Period. If someone has to give up their right to free speech because you don't agree with what they say, you also give up your right to call that person a fucktard.

I actually believe there's more to this story. He violated a law against incitement. Was he encouraging his congregation to go out fag bashing? Incitement does mean to provoke. So considering the original news source on this, I think the entire story isn't being told. By reporting only half the truth, they get their readers to complain about religious prosecution.

[orthogonal]

5. This is a terrible denial of civil rights

While I support civil rights for all I wonder if this is going too far. Would we want such laws in the USA? I know Kerry supports full rights to gay citizens but would he want current hate crime legislation to cover this? I'm just curious as to what people think.

If you really support civil rights for all, then you must support the right of someone to say things you disagree with.

Of-goddamn-course this is going too far!!

A man was put in prison for saying what he believes! And moreover, he believes if he does not say it, he -- and others in his "flock" -- may suffer eternal damnation. His conscience cries out for him to say it, as much as did the conscience of any Christian martyr -- or as much Galileo Galilei's when told by the Church to deny scientific truth or be punished.

What happened in Sweden is a terrible denial of civil rights, not any sort of victory.

Soren Andersson isn't a civil rights leader; he's a Fascist with a friendly face.

To forestall anyone trying to read my motivations in my opinion, I think homosexuality should be up to the individual, I cheered when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Lawrence v. Texas, I support gay marriage, I got tears of joy in my eyes when I watched the first gay marriages in Massachusetts, and I'm an unswerving atheist. But most fundamentally, I believe people have a right to be left alone by government, unmolested regardless of their beliefs.

[ronabop]

7. Free speech good, incitement of, or planning of, violence, bad.

I always have to wonder what's missing from these mini-articles. For example, did the sermon continue: "...and like a cancer, we must cut it out of our society. We must each become a surgeon, and heal our society". Did the sermon somehow imply such a thing?

It's not that different from the debate of "free speech vs. conspiracy to commit murder". There's a line which is crossed that starts with "I think frank is bad" ... and ends with "so I'll happily take care of somebody who takes care of him". While we protect speech, at some points in time, the speech is no longer the issue, but what the speech is compelling (or inciting) others to do becomes the issue.

At the very least, comparing homosexuality to cancer elicits thoughts of an extreme danger that *must* be eliminated to save society. Comparing homosexuality to a wart, on the other hand, would not be telling parishoners that homosexuality must be destroyed in order to save society. See the difference? First case, parishoners are being told that killing homosexuals can save society from death. Second case, parishoners are told that society can survive without killing homosexuals.

I have a lot of different viewpoints on this issue, so, the challenge I throw out to those who believe in unrestricted free speech everywhere, all the time, I ask: Should an extreme right winger be allowed to print flyers offering a one million dollar bounty on your head? Do we throw out racketeering and conspiracy charges, if all someone did was talk?

-Bop
edit: grammar

[orthogonal]

9. No one advocated killing

According to the fragmentary reports I've been able to Google, all that Ake Green did was to preach and cite Biblical verses for his views.

Indeed, what the preacher said: "...and like a cancer, we must cut it out of our society. We must each become a surgeon, and heal our society" is not very different from what the Bible says: those who commit homosexuality (among other things) "shall be cut off from among their people" (Leviticus 18:29, King James Version).

So shall we also outlaw the Bible as hate speech? Shall we drive all literal believers underground?

Wouldn't that be doing precisely what the preacher suggested for homosexuals, effectively cutting Christians out of society?

Again to forestall any inferences: I'm an atheist and I'm all for gay rights. But no one has a right "not to be offended", much less a right to tell other people what they cannot say, or persuade others of, or think, because it's offensive to someone.

[ronabop]

12. Uh...

You are quoting a hypothetical thing I added, not a literal translation of his words.

Be that as it may, the word differences between "cut off from among their people" could be social avoidance, and not neccesarily violence. Or, depending on phrasing, a more violent set of words could have been used.

Doing some more googling myself, he was *not* found guilty of being offensive, He was not found guilty of quoting scriptures. He was not found guilty of not liking homosexuality.

He was found guilty of incitement of hatred.

It's mostly the far right who seem to be ignoring the incitement verdict, and are casting it as an issue of free speech, or being offensive, or "gay agenda". It's still prefectly legal to preach against homosexuality, to quote scripture, to offend people, etc.

Just don't incite hatred with your free speech in Sweden.

-Bop

[orthogonal]

14. A man has a right to hate

You are quoting a hypothetical thing I added, not a literal translation of his words.

My error. Thank you for pointing it out.

He was found guilty of incitement of hatred.

So? John Ashcroft wants to find providers of marijuana to the terminally ill, which is legal under California law, guilty of Federal drug laws. and if he could he would charge abortion providers with murder.

And Miami police arrested (and beat) non-violent anti-Bush protesters, claiming anti-Bush conduct was illegal disorderly conduct.

My point is, many here at D.U. would be (rightfully!) skeptical of the legitimacy of certain indictments here in the U.S., wary that language was being twisted to call what was peaceful protest "disorderly conduct".

But when it happens to an anti-gay preacher in Sweden, suddenly we're supposed to be less skeptical?

Cops and prosecutors will always stretch the law as far as they can to get a conviction.

And note that in this case the charge is not "incitement to murder" or even "incitement to violence". It's merely described as "incitement". Technically, it's "incitement" to say "Believe in Jesus" or "Don't believe in Jesus" or "Homosexuality is sinful" or "Gay is good".

Violence is wrong, but how do you propose to legislate against "hate" unless you presume to tell people what they may -- and may not -- believe?

A man has a right to hate -- hating is a belief, a matter of one's personal belief. A man has a right to attempt to persuade others to hate.

[ronabop]

16. I think maybe Europe has decided something we're still learning about...

I'm not sure I agree with your perspective on incitement.

It seems the difference is somewhere between incited hate speech, and free speech.

Let's take the following:
1. Jesus is good.
2. Jesus is good, disbelievers are bad.

The first phrase is an incitement to believe in something. The second phrase in an incitement to believe in something, and take (non-specific) action against those who disbelieve.

I really like your argument examples, they help me push around and re-form my own thoughts on the issue. Let's take medicinal marijuana.
1. Marijuana distribution is illegal.
No incitement to take action, yet.
2. Because distributors are committing crimes, those criminals should be turned in.
This is incitement to action, but it still doesn't pass the test of incitement of hurtful illegal action against others. It does incite legal action, but not extra-legal action.
3. Distributors are a social cancer, and must be destroyed.
This is where we leave law and order, and enter violent, inciting, speech.

Another:
1. Vote Kerry.
Incitement to take action, but legal.
2. Bush is a war criminal.
Incitement to take legal action against bush, but still legal.
3. Protesters strapping themselves to private property, making a scene, parading without permits.
Conspiring to, and committing, an illegal act. Several, actually. One of the dirty undersides to "non violent" protest is that while non violent, it is also often illegal.

Can you give me some cases where non-legal actions are justified, under US laws, or explain how I am missing the point? I guess one area of focus might be that those who make the rules can make defaming any president illegal, but that would have to pass a barrier of hate speech/free speech/incitement in some way or another here.

In all seriousness, I'm trying to wrap my head around a way to see the reasons for what happened, and how it fits into the US legal framework.

Feel free to slam me with things I am not considering... my mind is like reforming clay on this.

-Bop

[Warren DeMontague]

15. If...

If People In The USA Weren't Free To Make Total, Flatulating Asses out of themselves, this would be a very quiet country.

[undergroundpanther]

18. people

have forgotten why certain speech is hurtful,they deny abuse hurts.

They have lost civility and our culture is uncivil,fragmented and rude and like hypocrites we complain about our cultural love of violence. It's violent because we abuse each other and tell the victims they are too sensitive and tell the loudmouth ass it is OK for him to go shooting off his trap at bystanders or other people and dehumanize them having no empathy for what his words do to other people.

Words can and do hurt.Some speech is designed to hurt.

Any speaker can choose better words to say,they can choose not to denigrate people,incite people,and spread hate and bigotry..However your ears can't choose what to hear when someone is speaking until after you heard it.Than you can either walk away or react.]
Either way the person hurt by speech telling them they are a monster is hurt.

Bullies need to be held accountable for their words and actions.
I don't care what they believe,verbal abuse is abuse.

[HFishbine]

23. I disagree

I don't want to live in a country where people expect not to be offended. We'd have to shut down DU in such a world.

[MissAnnThrope]

29. It's Already Headed There

The entire Political Correctness movement, which one side blames the other for. It curbs free speech. While it seems to be calming down a bit, (but not much,) I still encounter people who tell me things such as, I shouldn't call myself short, I should call myself vertically challenged. I've been known to ask them if they wish to become dentally challenged.

You've got all these people who weren't popular in HS, or got picked on in grade school who suddenly decided certain words were hate words. So people won't be hurt or feel bad about themselves. People are quickly losing their senses of humor. A few years ago, I broke my foot. I was calling myself "Gimpy" and I was being blasted for calling myself that. Yes, I was supposed to call myself temporarily disabled. That's when I decided some people are just insane, but come off as normal.

[Seeking Serenity]

43. "I shouldn't call myself short, I should call myself vertically challenged

I have actually heard, in all earnestness, short people described as the "height differentialed."

No kidding.

:wtf:

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Well, That's an excellent argument you must think you have, there---

...against that pesky, problematic first amendment, isn't it?

Do I believe there is such a thing as "hate speech"? Hell, yes. I've seen Rev. Fred Phelps's goons standing on street corners with their signs. But what's the best way to respond? By clutching crinoline doilies to one's chest and fleeing in terror, or confronting him with one's own speech, fully and intelligently elucidating the man as the flagrant doofus that he is? Did you ever see Michael Moore's episode of "The Awful Truth" where he (with his "sodomobile") took on "Reverend" Phelps, and had him running away like a scared puppy? Intimidating Speech doesn't work if the person on the other end refuses to be intimidated. Does that mean that the KKK should have the right to burn crosses on other people's lawns? Hell, no. But do you really think it's wise to start picking and choosing which speech is "okay" and which is "unacceptable"? I've got bad news for you- there's a lot of people in this country who think Fahrenheit 9-11 is "hate speech". There's a lot of people who, given their druthers, would love to play the role of censor- but it might not be the speech that you find so offensive that was getting censored- for all you know, it might be your speech. Freedom of speech is only as good as the right of the most unpopular, noxious, offensive opinions to be aired.

And I don't care what you believe, this liberal believes in the first friggin' amendment.

[orthogonal]

48. Thank you liberal

Well and movingly said.

Thank you.

[Pepperbelly]

19. no, speech should not be curtailed and it certainly shouldn't be ...

a criminal offense.

On this, they are oppressive.

People have a right to believe and say what they want, even if it offends the hearer. When someone spews vile hatred in their speech, the antidote is free speech saying how despicable the notions are and what an asshole he is for saying it.

[billyskank]

33. Except for crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre, I assume...?

That is the standard example exception from protected free speech.

[Seeking Serenity]

44. "Except for crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre, I assume...?"

Actually, you can do that . . . as long as there really is a fire.

What you can't do is falsely shout fire in a crowded theatre.

[HFishbine]

21. Currently a hate crime must involve a crime

when the simple expression of hate becomes the crime itself, we are in trouble. Just think of how many of us would be indicted for "hating" the president.

[bigbillhaywood]

25. Well, on the one hand I support the absolute, unfettered right to free

speech. On the other hand, it's just really cool they locked that fascist fucker up. I suppose being anit-Statist myself, I don't think the State should have the right or power to lock someone up for saying that, but I wouldn't have any problem with an angry mob burning down his house and beating the shit out of him for saying it.

[undergroundpanther]

36. Maybe

If bullies who shoot off their mouths got their mouths popped for being an asshole maybe they wouldn't go around humiliating people and learn to get along with people.Not every damn thought in your head HAS to be spoken.Sometimes we bite outre tongues because peace and cooperation overrides the desire to be an asshole.People who are unable to cooperate with others,and unwilling to give a little are a problem maybe these narcissistic little fools need Some victims to reeducate them about what hurts.Sadly people who are victimized are not taught how to fight back until they have internalized the verbally abusive shit bullies compulsively choose to dish out to others.Everything you say effects others why would it be said out loud if it didn't.
So ask yourselves why are you choosing to be an asshole,and do you choose to act that way when you know you won't be ashamed for what you say or get punched out or embarrassed in front of others?

Honest colorful free speech that is controversial has none of this personal attacking selective shame game,it is said for all to hear regardless.Hate speech is said only for the intended victim and sympathetic ears to hear.
Abuse has a different motive in the hearty than controversy does.

[bigbillhaywood]

40. Uhhh...maybe I'm stupid as well as an asshole, but are you referring to

me or the Pentecostal minister in your post (or neither)?

[Warren DeMontague]

42. So...

<<So ask yourselves why are you choosing to be an asshole,and do you choose to act that way when you know you won't be ashamed for what you say or get punched out or embarrassed in front of others?>>

Who are you addressing? Why don't you take it up with the Swedish Pentecostal Church?

[undergroundpanther]

47. Ummm

I confront fundies on their abusive speech anytime I am around a fundie who does it(in person)
As for the yous I didn't mean *you* personally,so please don't take it personally.
I meant people in general (you = reader thinking about this issue in general)..All people some more than others( like bullies, fundies or bush and Chaney ect..)need to start thinking about the potential impact the words we choose to say may make on others who hear them and to question our own motives for saying what what choose to say in a honest way.
Why do we choose certain words?
To provoke thoughts,challenge the status quo,reassure others..?
Or do we choose our words to hurt people,to dominate them and justify our desire to bully or to excuse entitlement fantasies or elitism?
There are questions worth asking to yourself sometimes.
I ask it of myself,to keep myself honest inside myself.
It helps me deal with others better.

If I was misunderstood I am sorry I'll be clearer if I can.I'm not anywhere near the best writer in the world.I hope you understood the meaning of what I said about the problems with abusive speech anyways tho.

[Warren DeMontague]

53. Fair Enough.

Unfortunately, the people who need most to consider the impact that their words might have, are generally the least likely to do so.

That said, there's a big difference, in my book, between saying people should try to be nice to one another, and not say mean, hurtful things (absolutely!) and saying that someone ought to go to jail for saying something, even if it's asinine, mean, thoughtless or cruel. Sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from.

[orthogonal]

49. " I wouldn't have any problem with an angry mob burning down his house"

...it's just really cool they locked that fascist fucker up.... I wouldn't have any problem with an angry mob burning down his house and beating the shit out of him for saying it.

Yeah, nothing is more progressive than forming a lynch mob to burn and beat those who merely say things we disagree with.

Why, you know, my neighbors Les Maddox and Davy Duke was telling me that they's offended by this black guy, Marty King, who keeps talkin' 'bout racial integration and how them blacks should be allowed to vote, and we all know that's just paving the way for miscegenation -- them getting with our pure white daughters. That sort of hate speech could destroy the White race!

Now that black guy, Marty Luther King, he's a Reverend just' like that hate-talking preacher in Sweden.

I sure hope that if we cain't throw Rev. King in the Birmingham jail for his free speech, at least we can get together, as you put it, "an angry mob <to burn> down his house and <beat> the shit out of him for saying it."

While we're at it, I think we should beat up those socialists Emma Goldman and Eugene Debs, and them Commie Hippie protesters at the 1968 Democratic Convention, and shoot those pro-North Vietnam draft dodgers running off their mouths at Kent State, and help the police with beating up those anti-WTO protesters last year in Miami. 'Cause what they's saying is jsut hate speech against capitalism, and the Army, and America.

Tell you what, I'll bring the jackboots and the torches if you'll being the pitchforks and the hanging-rope. Maybe we can have a book burning on the way, and throw in the First Amendment.

Heil Freedom!

[bigbillhaywood]

51. Lighten up.

[bigbillhaywood]

52. Fascism must be fought by physical force when necessary.

I exercised a little hyperbole in my post, but in reality the situation in Sweden likely did not warrant use of physical force. But I sure wouldn't shed any tears for the fascist fuck if a mob did give him a beatdown. Progressivism may equal pacifism for you, but not me. Pacifism is an infantile disorder of modern progressives and revolutionaries. I will credit the pacifists with principle, but not the will to win.

[Baltimoreboy]

57. Psychotic vigilantes must be fought

If they burn down his house today, they might come for yours tomorrow.

[Eric J in MN]

30. makes me glad we have the First Amendment here (nt)

nt

[Aidoneus]

37. No, never

This man's right to speak as he pleases should not be threatened. Nor should my right to call him a fucking asshole be limited.

If merely being offended grants one the right to suppression, my personal firing squads would fill up the Grand Canyon. I don't think any of us wants that, so it's best to leave the matter as it lays.

[undergroundpanther]

50. Two kinds of relating...

If bullies can bully than it's logical that victims can rise up and beat the bully back.
But it doesn't work that way in reality.

For instance:
If a school bully torments you and you tell the teacher,you get abused worse when the teacher does nothing..The problem isn't the victims it that the culture is desensitized.The only way to stop the bully is to "top" the bully.To top someone you are not reinforcing equality, you are abusing him.Diminishing him. Some people get off on this process.Others do it for self defense,some do it because they don't like to be around abusive people. Some people do it and learn to like it and become a bully them self.

It would be different situation if victims got listened to the first time they reported their stories..and got recognition and a culture of cooperation and respect was reinforced over the competitive bully culture..But it doesn't happen.

Bullies always deny what they do,and say that denigrates the victims They lie and excuse when a hurt person says it hurt to be disrespected,because the bully knows he was an asshole he wants to deny who they harmed and deny them their right to say how they feel about getting hurt by the bully to someone who could "top" the bully and restrain him..The bullies in our culture seek to avoid accountability always.They will deflect blame anywhere but onto them self for their choices..Our culture keeps the bully company,it plays make believe about the harm traumas do,instead it grows a thick skin denies it than offends rather than motivate the individuals that create culture into deciding to take responsibility for by standing and helping create how fucked up this civilization is.

Funny how laws made by authoritarians tend to protect the bullies in power.(Enron,Falwell,Limbaugh, Bush,from ever being accountable for their actions and the inciting,dehumanizing,stigma generating words that they say deliberately to hurt some people they disagree with.)

Either people will identify with the asshole and the asshole in their own heart,and be a jerk because they think there entitled to because they can,and they rationalize it...
Or they restrain their own mouth a little ,give a little,and think on behalf of the other person;s feelings that are different and empathize with how they might hear what is said.
This is called skillful means, tact,or just plain civility.
It's what makes peace possible between people.
When civility goes abuse and the biggest dominator imposes his rule and his police to make sure nobody disrespects him or his friends.( when the conduct rules of civility and cooperation turn to insensitive callousness and abuse you get just the kind of clannish elitism and bullying alot of Dem's bitch about concerning the right wingers.)

If you are the kind of person with empathy for others and desire to get along more than top others,,Civility really works.If you are a insensitive you will chafe about civility because you like being an asshole bully to other people more than the idea of getting along,peace, having equal partnerships with people.Bullies have an entitlement delusion concerning their penchant for verbal abuse.

If you empathize with whom you speak to you are careful to not use your words in ways you know will belittle,hurt the people you truly respect. If you disrespect them and were misunderstood or you misunderstood the other person you are gracious and apologetic about it because it's the way to rebuild trust and respect.

In my observations everyone I meet wants to be liked, respected ,recognized and listened to, etc. If you choose to act respectful to them and be respectful of yourself and choose to hold respectful standards all around until you are disrespected, you'll be respected.It's because respect is earned by how you choose to respect others and respect who they are..

People don't earn my respect by shitting on other people verbally.Verbal abuse isn't funny..That shit may get respect from other assholes who also enjoy dumping verbal shit on people. So if someone thinks the respect of assholes and bullies is important to them than it'as a good bet they're a bully or a bully wannabe.
Bullies,manipulators ,authoritarians and narcissists are not worthy of my respect once they reveal where they stand in an equal relationship.I dunno about other people's stands on this issue but this is how I deal with ass-holey people..If a person shows their ass to me once or under stress I can let it slide.If they show their ass repeatedly it's obvious to me they are hoping I'll think they are an asshole that chooses to incite problems and pain in any community or relationship..I'm not gonna bother trying to emotionally sensitize a degenerate asshole that thinks he can do no wrong.

People like that are not worth my respecting than.They have made their choices,and I will make sure they abide by them around me.If they don't like it,they leave.
Bullies either need to be confronted ,than after that if they don't stop their crap they'll be attacked,,restrained or expelled from my presence.Whatever it takes to shop the abuses..At that point I don't care what they think about anything or where they point their fingers..
I don't tolerate people in my presence who get off on abuse.
Where ever I am,my standards of what I tolerate and don't are with me.

[Djinn]

55. funny

"abnormal, a horrible cancerous tumor in the body of society"

that's how I feel about religion.