To my foreign DU friends - please help me understand this (small rant)

[votingupstart]

so i just finished a discussion on 1st amendment rights / how the founding fathers intended them to be applied / why we need them still today. the person i was discussing this with had a unique viewpoint that "we" (as in the US) should out law all hate speech regardless if it calls for/is used for/sparks violence or not.

during the thread it became clear that the person i was discussing this with WAS NOT IN THE COUNTRY, NOR WAS HE/SHE A CITIZEN of the US.

I have had SEVERAL intelligent, well thought, meaningful discussions on policy, politics, etc with foreign posters, NEVER have i had the pleasure of being lectured (incorrectly i might add) on how the bill of rights applies to citizens today and how we don't need all of the rights anymore. i absolutely believe in the discussion of ideals/policies/procedures across borders, i believe it is vital to understanding each other as a society, as separate nations, and as part of the human race.

I am not going to point fingers or name names but if you happen to be a citizen of Mexico or Canada, or the UK, or the UKRAINE (yes you) please don't lecture me on how to use my freedom of speech. in case the subtly doesn't quite come across (as it apparently did not in our other discussion i have summarized it below for you)

EXCUSE ME?? WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU - to tell me exactly what the founding fathers intended for the implementations and continuation of the bill of rights or how those rights are supposed to be interpreted and used today. i don't care if its the 1st, 2nd,3rd,4th or any other amendments, Those are MY RIGHTS, granted to me by MY COUNTRY, if you are so keen to see them changed or modified or done away with - BECOME A CITIZEN AND VOTE.

As a note - i have enough trouble trying to convince my fellow (US) citizens that we as Americans do not need to be playing in every other countries politics, We are doing fine screwing up other countries by our selves we really don't need others to help us. Additionally you undercut our arguments that other countries don't meddle in our affairs so we shouldn't meddle in theirs, or would you prefer we just continue to invade and overthrow anyone who we disagree with?

sorry for the rant - i in no way mean to paint all "foreigners" with the broad brush of hypocrite lecturer.

[zipplewrath]

1. When you calm down

It is important to understand the potential difference that words like "freedom" and "rights" have when translated to other languages. There was a story during the cold war that the Soviet Union used to translate the word "freedom" into "security" when doing official translations. "Rights" often is translated into a word that can as easily be understood as "authorization" or "needs". I've had extended discussions with foreigners only to realize that our points of view have as much to do with a difference in definitions as much as anything else.

[votingupstart]

5. you bring a good point - unfortunately the definitions were clear here

we were clearly discussing what we (US) could and could not say as protected speech (ie yelling fire in a movie theater as opposed to saying the government needed to be voted out). The person i was discussing the issue with had the idea that any form of speech where someone said mean or hateful things about another (regardless of the outcome/context/printed/verbal/etc)was not what freedom of speech was intended for and should be criminalised.

[zipplewrath]

8. Yes

I'm not sure there could be much misunderstanding in those circumstances. However, one thing I have discovered is that many cultures don't grasp the concept that having freedoms means the freedom to "do it wrong" too. There is no problem with a freedom that is "correctly" used, but they don't see that there is any "right to be wrong" so to speak. Society has the authority in the vast majority of the world to decide right and wrong and enforce those concepts on their citizens, if it is by a relatively "democratic" process (i.e. through democratically promulgated laws). Truth is there are many folks in the US that hold these points of view despite the obvious conflict with the intent of the constitution. Some even consider themselves "leftists". Understand also that there are still many countries with "official religions" and laws against "blasphemy".

[votingupstart]

13. good point

i like the "do it wrong" explanation and concept - if you don't mind, i will try using it if i get into another discussion of this type.

[Gwendolyn]

14. Google "freedom of speech + Ukraine" sometime, and you'll understand.

Propaganda works.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. You're right.

When will somebody do something about all of these foreigners having opinions?

[votingupstart]

6. sarcasm? - or did you mis-interpret my point?

are you being sarcastic?....... or..?......

as i stated in the OP this is not about foreign opinions, i have had several interesting, honest, candid, fact based discussions with many DU'ers who were not from the US. This is the first time though that i have been told by someone who has never had the rights exactly how they should apply to me.

TO BE CLEAR - This is not about foreign opinions, i welcome them and find differing view points absolutely critical in decision making. I am not for telling other countries how they should live their lives just because i live mine a certain way. the attitude of do it our way has gotten us (the US) into more than a few bad spots <cough Iraq cough> - and i see no reason to further the practice.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. No wonder the world loves us so much.

[Iggo]

10. It's like they don't even knnow they're foreigners.

:eyes:

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Hah!

[Hoopla Phil]

4. I run into this with citizens of the U.S. often. Try being an advocate for 2nd amendment rights

and see how much of a brick wall you run into. You are running square into someones pre-conceived ideas of how society "should" be and not the reality of how it really is. Many people cannot see beyond the here and now and lack the longer vision to see the "butterfly affect".

[zipplewrath]

9. 2nd is unique

The concepts of the NRA view of the 2nd are pretty unique to this country and are going to translate poorly around the world. In reality, the concepts upon which they are based are pretty "archaic" in a cultural sense and most folks aren't raised in environments that make them comprehendable.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I don't know what discussion this refers to; but...

I would not expect to tell another country (or even my own) to change its policies on my behest; that would be really arrogant! But people expressing an opinion is not the same as expecting others to change just because of your opinion. (E.g. - I once said on the board that I thought Congressman Peter King should shut up about others supporting terrorism as he had supported the IRA himself; and someone seemed to interpret this this as that I was literally trying to ORDER him to shut up and thus restrict his free speech from 3000 miles away! All I meant was that King is a hypocrite IMO; it doesn't mean I think I can literally order him not to be!)

I agree that it's annoying when people get the history and laws of your country WRONG and pass judgement on that basis. But it happens with regard to all countries. E.g. - I deliberately stay out of the American domestic gun control debate, as I realize I don't know enough of the background and it's not really my business. But some posters here have expressed a completely distorted view of the gun situation in England, assuming that we once had a gun culture similar to the USA, and that the government 'took our guns away', thus either turning us into a police state, or a no-go area run by armed gangs. Not so: we never *did* have a gun culture like the USA. And I'm not saying that the USA should or even can have gun control like Britain, but at the same time I get a bit irritated by people assuming that Britain is worse or less free because we don't have the same gun rights. We're not better or worse, just different.

Not saying that these arguments happen regularly, and in fact I'm impressed by DU-ers' friendliness to non-American posters, compared with the frequent 'we don't care what you foreigners think' that I've encountered on boards that include right-wingers.

[votingupstart]

15. i appreciate your response

- i may have seemed a bit dramatic in my OP, as i was a little upset at the thread. As i did state i WELCOME all opinions it is crucial to the critical thinking process. I am a big proponent of letting countries/societies/nations/peoples determine for themselves the best ways of self governance, always ready to help if asked and give advice if asked but never the less letting people decide for themselves independently. I purposefully do not comment on how UK or Ukrainian laws are intended to be implemented and how the citizens of those countries should act in response and i have to say i was a little upset that i was being told how to interpret the rights in my country.

just as a side note - how can you put up with all of our arguing between the right and the left - how does it compare to your system? what do you see as pros /cons with your system as opposed to ours?

[me b zola]

11. Wow. You're a charmer.

[votingupstart]

16. i make it a practice

to be polite and use fact based discussions, i do not resort to name calling (unless insulted first), however when the poster will not answer in the thread nor respond to IM's - its probably game on.

and if the poster in question would like to start a thread about a US DU poster who thinks that freedom of speech was intended to cover non-violent speech (as distasteful as some of it is) then i will be happy to continue the discussion there.

by the way i called the nut-job who shot up the Holocaust museum a "fucked-up, lunatic, bigot asshole", so i guess i am now guilty of "hate" speech or maybe just "freedom of speech"