Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 90

Thread: Censorship

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Fluty View Post
    so ink... in your opinion

    are you saying you support that if someone is putting out pamphlets with hate or handing out fliers that say something like... "get rid of the gays before your son comes home with a boyfriend!" ...you would support taking away their rights to voice their opinion?

    would you allow the KKK to hold public rallys?

    what rights do you suppose are flexible based on morals?

    (notice im not bashing you, or voicing my opinion... just asking a real question)
    To be honest, we don't encourage KKK kooks to "assemble" in Canada and we're not any worse for it.
    Last edited by ink; 08-25-2008 at 08:25 PM.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin2007 View Post
    Somebody peacefully and respectfully talking about their ideals is worse than a bunch of people killing and torturing and raping others?

    What's worse? Making a movie or KILLING people? Please, if you honestly believe this...
    Your average wacko (kkk member, truther, moveon.org member, neo-nazi) hasn't killed anyone. They sit in their apartment/house/trailer/car/mansion/etc and yell at the tv everytime a black person comes on/a government official comes on/a republican comes on/a jew comes on etc. They don't kill people.

    Perhaps you have this view of America where neo-nazis lurk behind every corner ready to spring. But it's not like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin2007 View Post
    It's simple. If you try to proliferate hateful/angry material against a certain group of people (gays, jews, blacks, w/e), it's HATE SPEECH. What don't you people understand?
    Because it isn't.

    It's hateful speech, but it's still speech. And, for better or for worse, it's protected.

    I sincerely wish that neo-nazis would shut the **** up. And if I ever met one who went on a holocaust denial rant, I'd probably punch them. Remember, I'm a neo-con. So I love jews and Israel more than many liberal jews
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    cheese head land
    Posts
    4,088
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah, I get it. Making movies is far worse for our society than people that kill others/convince other people to kill.



  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    248
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by OnWisconsin2007 View Post
    Yeah, I get it. Making movies is far worse for our society than people that kill others/convince other people to kill.
    I believe the point he is trying to make is that Michael Moore reaches far more people than any wack-job neo-nazi ever could or would. If you believe that Moore uses half-truths or outright lies to influence people who watch his movies to vote the way he wants them to vote, then Moore has a far greater impact (and yes, negative impact) then some douchebag skinhead that 99.99% of the people who hear him just shake their heads and ask if he was raised under power lines.

    As for "hate speech" it is just very difficult for me to swallow the idea that once a person is elected to office, he/she is now in charge of whether what I say, or you say, is illegal. The government cannot adequately come to compromise on benign issues like the best way to pave roads, yet several of you are ready to allow them to decide whether something you say should be punishable by law. It is just a bit scary to me.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    ^^ Yes. And arguably Moore is a lot more hateful.

    Anyway, ink, did Canada ever have a huge KKK issue? Because I know they never had slaves, or segregation and stuff. So just wondering.
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    As for "hate speech" it is just very difficult for me to swallow the idea that once a person is elected to office, he/she is now in charge of whether what I say, or you say, is illegal. The government cannot adequately come to compromise on benign issues like the best way to pave roads, yet several of you are ready to allow them to decide whether something you say should be punishable by law. It is just a bit scary to me.
    Do you have faith in your democracy and legal system or not? I'm asking an honest question. If you don't have faith in lawmakers or government leaders, then you have the democratic right to effect change. Go for it. You can't just sit back and say that government shouldn't do what it's designed to do. Who do you think created American governmental institutions? Americans, I figure. Do you respect the Americans that created the institutions that run your own country? I don't get it.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    248
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ink View Post
    Do you have faith in your democracy and legal system or not? I'm asking an honest question. If you don't have faith in lawmakers or government leaders, then you have the democratic right to effect change. Go for it. You can't just sit back and say that government shouldn't do what it's designed to do. Who do you think created American governmental institutions? Americans, I figure. You don't respect the Americans that created the institutions that run your own country? I don't get it.
    There is a big difference between having faith in the system, and turning over absolute power to that same system. I know you belittled someone else's reference to [I]1984[I] but it seems appropriate to what you are advocating. Electing a representative does not mean you give them carte blanche over every aspect of your life. Would the US be arguably better with less poor kids being born? If that is proven to be fact, shouldn't we allow our government to decide to sterilize certain mothers? Of course we shouldn't, but that is not that far off from what you are advocating.

    Just because something is arguably for the greater good, does not necessarily mean that you should throw away all other considerations to make it happen.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    I think that's the fundamental difference. I don't think the government should favor some victims over others or tell people what to think or restrict free speech based on the absurd idea of popular consensus.

    So it's not that I believe the government is failing. I believe by restricting freedoms it would be failing.
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,277
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    There is a big difference between having faith in the system, and turning over absolute power to that same system. I know you belittled someone else's reference to [I]1984[I] but it seems appropriate to what you are advocating. Electing a representative does not mean you give them carte blanche over every aspect of your life.
    Which pretty much sums up a good chunk of why I'm opposed to the patriot act.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    ^^ Yes. And arguably Moore is a lot more hateful.

    Anyway, ink, did Canada ever have a huge KKK issue? Because I know they never had slaves, or segregation and stuff. So just wondering.
    Apparently yes in the Prairies in the 20's and 30's. Most of them came from Eastern Europe and the USA. Apparently the target of these klansmen was the Catholic church. Different kind of KKK I guess.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    There is a big difference between having faith in the system, and turning over absolute power to that same system. I know you belittled someone else's reference to [I]1984[I] but it seems appropriate to what you are advocating. Electing a representative does not mean you give them carte blanche over every aspect of your life. Would the US be arguably better with less poor kids being born? If that is proven to be fact, shouldn't we allow our government to decide to sterilize certain mothers? Of course we shouldn't, but that is not that far off from what you are advocating.

    Just because something is arguably for the greater good, does not necessarily mean that you should throw away all other considerations to make it happen.
    Again, it's not about absolutes. They don't have to have absolute power. Censorship is something that has to be used very carefully and selectively. Please show me where I've said governments should have absolute power over what people say.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by blenderboy5 View Post
    I think that's the fundamental difference. I don't think the government should favor some victims over others or tell people what to think or restrict free speech based on the absurd idea of popular consensus.

    So it's not that I believe the government is failing. I believe by restricting freedoms it would be failing.
    "Popular consensus" doesn't have to be the guide. History is the guide. Virtually all of us would agree about the holocaust and about the need for equal rights among races. That's not popular consensus. That's learning from history and working to ensure that the ugliest chapters in history don't repeat themselves.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    248
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by ink View Post
    Again, it's not about absolutes. They don't have to have absolute power. Censorship is something that has to be used very carefully and selectively. Please show me where I've said governments should have absolute power over what people say.
    WHat I am saying is that you are advocating for letting the government decide where to "draw the line" and I have a problem with that. It has to be about absolutes. You either have the right to make uncomfortable speech, or you don't. We cannot allow the government at its whim to decide that speech against black people, homosexuals, and cute puppies is bad while speech against white people, Christians, and liberals is acceptable. Who is a protected class, and what is "over the line"? Again I say that we have laws in place that protect people from being threatened or actually attacked. We do not need laws that make everybody at least talk like they all think the same way.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    A place called Paradise
    Posts
    13,621
    vCash
    1500
    hell this website is censored

    and blendorboy remember that place called the mlb forum, u dont post their anymore
    Jackie Bradley Junior.... that is all

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    49,869
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastside Scott View Post
    WHat I am saying is that you are advocating for letting the government decide where to "draw the line" and I have a problem with that. It has to be about absolutes. You either have the right to make uncomfortable speech, or you don't. We cannot allow the government at its whim to decide that speech against black people, homosexuals, and cute puppies is bad while speech against white people, Christians, and liberals is acceptable. Who is a protected class, and what is "over the line"? Again I say that we have laws in place that protect people from being threatened or actually attacked. We do not need laws that make everybody at least talk like they all think the same way.
    Who says only a few select classes would be protected from hate speech? It's a universal idea. No one should be subjected to hate speech.

    And my point about elected officials is that they have been entrusted with your vote in one way or another. They should use that power wisely (unlike the present administration with their abuse of power in the form of the Patriot Act) and lead. If, like the Bush admin., they abuse their power, they will be turfed out. They remain answerable to the voting public. If they misapply censorship, the public can express its disapproval and things will adjust. That's the beauty of a democracy. And a democracy has to mature. It has to make choices about what it stands for.
    Last edited by ink; 08-25-2008 at 09:26 PM.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •