Hey, I won't argue against that assertion.Man With No Name wrote:
You wanna call me fascist because I want to remove visual blights. well then, Im a fascist motherfucker.
I just woke up you fucking douche rag and Im going to work.
youre just gonna end up agreeing with me like you do in EVERY single one of your so called "debates" with others
tell you the truth, i didnt even read your replies. Honestly turq, your opinion means jack and shit to me. Youve proven yourself (to me anyways) that the www is the limit to all of your knowledge. You rarely stick by your guns and you get offended very quickly.
go ahead and think your winning a debate ya nerd, if it makes you feel good about yourself, more power to you. But i personally think you have the same depth, insight and critical thought as say someone just graduating middle school.
And you know, I have held countless "debates" before on this forum. I have had pages and pages of points and arguments and anecdotes and what not, so we both know calling me a troll is bullshit(because I think youre a peice of shit for thinking the CSA is in any way, shape or form, a good thing) then Im the biggest troll in the world!
youre just gonna end up agreeing with me like you do in EVERY single one of your so called "debates" with others
tell you the truth, i didnt even read your replies. Honestly turq, your opinion means jack and shit to me. Youve proven yourself (to me anyways) that the www is the limit to all of your knowledge. You rarely stick by your guns and you get offended very quickly.
go ahead and think your winning a debate ya nerd, if it makes you feel good about yourself, more power to you. But i personally think you have the same depth, insight and critical thought as say someone just graduating middle school.
And you know, I have held countless "debates" before on this forum. I have had pages and pages of points and arguments and anecdotes and what not, so we both know calling me a troll is bullshit(because I think youre a peice of shit for thinking the CSA is in any way, shape or form, a good thing) then Im the biggest troll in the world!
Last edited by Man With No Name (2009-04-25 08:32:12)
You can do both.Turquoise wrote:
It is best to condemn things... in the public square. If you make expression of something illegal, it goes underground and finds legitimacy among small but determined groups.Bertster7 wrote:
There is absolutely no way Germany will change that, ever.
I don't think they should. It is best to condemn some things. But then I am a big supporter of laws against inciting racial hatred, which have proven exceedingly effective in Europe, enabling us to lock up loads of terrorists. Being able to remove the instigators from circulation is a very good thing, it's far more effective than bombing them.
The only way racism will be lessened in any society is to engage it but to respect the freedom of speech while doing so.
In the UK we have anti-hate speech laws and such like, but we also have political parties like the BNP.
It's a case of balance and what the majority want and implementing that without it impacting on peoples rights to believe what they want.
That's a very convenient way for you to appease your own viewpoint.Man With No Name wrote:
I just woke up you fucking douche rag and Im going to work.
youre just gonna end up agreeing with me like you do in EVERY single one of your so called "debates" with others
You taught me something important several months ago when I left this forum for a while. I realized that if I decided to match your trolling, it would only drag me down to your level.Man With No Name wrote:
tell you the truth, i didnt even read your replies. Honestly turq, your opinion means jack and shit to me. Youve proven yourself (to me anyways) that the www is the limit to all of your knowledge. You rarely stick by your guns and you get offended very quickly.
So, instead, I engage you with reason. And this post of yours is all you can do in response.
Your opinion doesn't mean much to me either, which is why I come here for debates, not opinions. You aren't making any logical argument here.Man With No Name wrote:
go ahead and think your winning a debate ya nerd, if it makes you feel good about yourself, more power to you. But i personally think you have the same depth, insight and critical thought as say someone just graduating middle school.
Again, if you want to call yourself a troll, be my guest. But, as you've just said, you're capable of debate, so why not go back to it? I expected more from you, as I'm sure most people here would.Man With No Name wrote:
And you know, I have held countless "debates" before on this forum. I have had pages and pages of points and arguments and anecdotes and what not, so we both know calling me a troll is bullshit(because I think youre a peice of shit for thinking the CSA is in any way, shape or form, a good thing) then Im the biggest troll in the world!
We actually agree on many things, but for some reason, you get downright nasty in disagreements.
The last sentence is key. I just believe the balance should lean more in the direction of free speech.Bertster7 wrote:
You can do both.Turquoise wrote:
It is best to condemn things... in the public square. If you make expression of something illegal, it goes underground and finds legitimacy among small but determined groups.Bertster7 wrote:
There is absolutely no way Germany will change that, ever.
I don't think they should. It is best to condemn some things. But then I am a big supporter of laws against inciting racial hatred, which have proven exceedingly effective in Europe, enabling us to lock up loads of terrorists. Being able to remove the instigators from circulation is a very good thing, it's far more effective than bombing them.
The only way racism will be lessened in any society is to engage it but to respect the freedom of speech while doing so.
In the UK we have anti-hate speech laws and such like, but we also have political parties like the BNP.
It's a case of balance and what the majority want and implementing that without it impacting on peoples rights to believe what they want.
what does the confederate flag have to do with racism? For most of the war the Union had slaves, and their generals had slaves. The only reason they 'freed' the slaves is because they were getting their ass kicked and needed soldiers from somewhere. If the confederate were getting their asses kicked i think they would have done the same.xBlackPantherx wrote:
I think it was acceptable for him to remove the flags. The confederate flag stands for succession, racism and the confederate was a domestic enemy. I think it's fine as a joke (like on a shotglass or flask) but not in serious belief because with it most likely comes discrimination of many sorts.Macbeth wrote:
So you all agree it's perfectly acceptable to remove flags from graves because you don't agree with what the flag stands for?
The graves are private property and there is no city rule restricting the symbols that can be placed on the graves. Putting the flags on the graves was legal and permitted, at least until the city enacts a rule forbidding it.Article wrote:
Auburn Mayor Bill Ham said he was unaware of any incidents at the cemetery but said he talked with Dowdell Thursday afternoon. Ham said his understanding was that all city cemeteries have covenants governing how and what types of decorations can be placed on graves, except for Pine Hill because it is so old. Ham said he believed Dowdell asked an assistant city manager to look into making policies equal for cemeteries across the city.
“The bottom line is those grave plots are deeded property,” Ham said. “We sell those. So they are sold to the family of the individuals, and I think (plot owners) have a right to do exactly what they did, according to the city attorney.”
Ham said in his conversation with Dowdell, the councilman suggested the flags be placed on the graves for a shorter period of time, perhaps for 24 hours before the event.
For now, the remaining flags will stay on the graves because of the lack of covenant governing Pine Hill, Ham said. But that could change in coming years.
“I certainly think we need to be consistent in all the cemeteries with whatever the policy is, not only with this, but with everything,” Ham said. “The council has got to make that decision.”
Removing the flags, on the other hand, could be considered a First Amendment violation because the guy who did it is a city councilman. If his actions were taken on behalf of the city, the First Amendment was almost certainly violated.
That said, nostalgia for the racist, anti-American Confederacy makes me ill.
But what is free speech, really?Turquoise wrote:
The last sentence is key. I just believe the balance should lean more in the direction of free speech.Bertster7 wrote:
You can do both.Turquoise wrote:
It is best to condemn things... in the public square. If you make expression of something illegal, it goes underground and finds legitimacy among small but determined groups.
The only way racism will be lessened in any society is to engage it but to respect the freedom of speech while doing so.
In the UK we have anti-hate speech laws and such like, but we also have political parties like the BNP.
It's a case of balance and what the majority want and implementing that without it impacting on peoples rights to believe what they want.
Very few countries have true freedom of speech, none that I can think of off the top of my head. The US doesn't, the UK doesn't. There are always laws to infringe on freedom of speech, even if they are not often used - the US has current laws banning sedition, as does the UK. You can't claim there is complete freedom of speech whilst such laws are in place.
I believe you have to take into account things that are harmful to the country and the people. Causing distress is clearly harmful to the people. If something is found offensive by the majority, then it should be controlled - not banned. If something is harmful to the country, there is a possibility that banning it is a good idea.
Examples of this could be:
Displaying swastikas, which is something that could cause offence to the public, which could lead to those displaying them being asked not to publicly display them any more, refusal would lead to legal action (ASBOs or suchlike).
Imams in mosques inciting racial hatred and promoting terrorism and suchlike, which could well pose a threat to the country in general, which is why I support it beign banned.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-25 09:10:22)
While it is true that slaves were present in some Union states (Missouri being one of them), slavery became a prominent issue during the war to arouse moral support among the North. In a way, you could say that the losses the North was taking inspired this, but more than anything, it was a matter of image. It's easier to motivate people to continue a bloody war when a moral reason is present.SealXo wrote:
what does the confederate flag have to do with racism? For most of the war the Union had slaves, and their generals had slaves. The only reason they 'freed' the slaves is because they were getting their ass kicked and needed soldiers from somewhere. If the confederate were getting their asses kicked i think they would have done the same.xBlackPantherx wrote:
I think it was acceptable for him to remove the flags. The confederate flag stands for succession, racism and the confederate was a domestic enemy. I think it's fine as a joke (like on a shotglass or flask) but not in serious belief because with it most likely comes discrimination of many sorts.Macbeth wrote:
So you all agree it's perfectly acceptable to remove flags from graves because you don't agree with what the flag stands for?
I see where you're coming from, and you're correct that some speech is banned by almost every country.Bertster7 wrote:
But what is free speech, really?
Very few countries have true freedom of speech, none that I can think of off the top of my head. The US doesn't, the UK doesn't. There are always laws to infringe on freedom of speech, even they are not often used - the US has current laws banning sedition, as does the UK. You can't claim there is complete freedom of speech whilst such laws are in place.
I believe you have to take into account things that are harmful to the country and the people. Causing distress is clearly harmful to the people. If something is found offensive by the majority, then it should be controlled - not banned. If something is harmful to the country, there is a possibility that banning it is a good idea.
Examples of this could be:
Displaying swastikas, which is something that could cause offence to the public, which could lead to those displaying them being asked not to publicly display them any more, refusal would lead to legal action (ASBOs or suchlike).
Imams in mosques inciting racial hatred and promoting terrorism and suchlike, which could well pose a threat to the country in general, which is why I support it beign banned.
I think there's an important difference between nostalgia and actually inciting hatred and riots though.
Religion is used to inspire some hateful things sometimes, but unless the speech is literally encouraging people to go commit crimes, I don't see how it can be banned.
The same is true of political groups. Someone can revere their ancestors' involvement in the Confederacy with a flag on a grave and not be a racist. I have some Confederate ancestors myself that are buried in plots in a local cemetery in my city where the Confederate flag flies over them. My support for this flag remaining in place doesn't mean that I think slavery should be re-instituted. It doesn't mean that I would support bringing back segregation. It doesn't mean that I'm racist or a member of the KKK.
So I think a clear line should be drawn between respecting one's heritage and actually supporting hateful, illegal things.
I think both of those fall neatly into the categories I refered to earlier - on one side you have something offensive to the majority, on the other stuff that is potentially dangerous to the country.Turquoise wrote:
I see where you're coming from, and you're correct that some speech is banned by almost every country.Bertster7 wrote:
But what is free speech, really?
Very few countries have true freedom of speech, none that I can think of off the top of my head. The US doesn't, the UK doesn't. There are always laws to infringe on freedom of speech, even they are not often used - the US has current laws banning sedition, as does the UK. You can't claim there is complete freedom of speech whilst such laws are in place.
I believe you have to take into account things that are harmful to the country and the people. Causing distress is clearly harmful to the people. If something is found offensive by the majority, then it should be controlled - not banned. If something is harmful to the country, there is a possibility that banning it is a good idea.
Examples of this could be:
Displaying swastikas, which is something that could cause offence to the public, which could lead to those displaying them being asked not to publicly display them any more, refusal would lead to legal action (ASBOs or suchlike).
Imams in mosques inciting racial hatred and promoting terrorism and suchlike, which could well pose a threat to the country in general, which is why I support it beign banned.
I think there's an important difference between nostalgia and actually inciting hatred and riots though.
Which it often is. "Death to all infidels" ring any bells?Turquoise wrote:
Religion is used to inspire some hateful things sometimes, but unless the speech is literally encouraging people to go commit crimes, I don't see how it can be banned.
But the impression I'm getting here is that the majority find it offensive, and if that is the case then publicly displaying the flag should be banned. By all means display it somewhere no one likely to take offence will see it, but don't force the wishes of the minority on the majority - that's what democracy is all about.Turquoise wrote:
The same is true of political groups. Someone can revere their ancestors' involvement in the Confederacy with a flag on a grave and not be a racist. I have some Confederate ancestors myself that are buried in plots in a local cemetery in my city where the Confederate flag flies over them. My support for this flag remaining in place doesn't mean that I think slavery should be re-instituted. It doesn't mean that I would support bringing back segregation. It doesn't mean that I'm racist or a member of the KKK.
So I think a clear line should be drawn between respecting one's heritage and actually supporting hateful, illegal things.
Banning or controlling anything offensive to the majority is a slippery slope. Homosexuality would appear to offend most Americans.Bertster7 wrote:
I think both of those fall neatly into the categories I refered to earlier - on one side you have something offensive to the majority, on the other stuff that is potentially dangerous to the country.
True. Fundamentalist Islam should be watched if nothing else.Bertster7 wrote:
Which it often is. "Death to all infidels" ring any bells?
What if that minority makes up about 40% of the population? I'm not really sure if you could say that the majority of my city is offended by the Confederate flag. It is true that half of my city is black, but I think even most of them understand that the placing of that flag there is not to promote the Confederacy but to respect the dead.Bertster7 wrote:
But the impression I'm getting here is that the majority find it offensive, and if that is the case then publicly displaying the flag should be banned. By all means display it somewhere no one likely to take offence will see it, but don't force the wishes of the minority on the majority - that's what democracy is all about.
Now, it would be different if our city hall had the Confederate flag on it. I think it's Georgia or South Carolina that has or had the Confederate flag flying above their capital. I can understand why something like that would be banned.
Still, in the context of a cemetery, I don't see the parallel.
I can see how a black person would get pissed off when a confederate flag is placed on the graves of confederate soldiers who were fighting to keep slavery. When the "daughters of the confederacy" placed those confederate flags on the graves what they are doing is political speech and they should expect a reaction, they definitely should not be suprised.
IMO I think the councilman overstepped by taking things from the graves. Perhaps he should have paid his own respects by placing US flags along with the confederate flags. I think that would have been the best option to counter the political speech of the daughters of the confederacy. I wonder how that group would like that symbolism, I would guess that they would be the ones taking things from the graves then.
Its a democracy, counter political speech with your own
IMO I think the councilman overstepped by taking things from the graves. Perhaps he should have paid his own respects by placing US flags along with the confederate flags. I think that would have been the best option to counter the political speech of the daughters of the confederacy. I wonder how that group would like that symbolism, I would guess that they would be the ones taking things from the graves then.
Its a democracy, counter political speech with your own
Now this is a much better argument. Instead of restricting speech, counter it.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I can see how a black person would get pissed off when a confederate flag is placed on the graves of confederate soldiers who were fighting to keep slavery. When the "daughters of the confederacy" placed those confederate flags on the graves what they are doing is political speech and they should expect a reaction, they definitely should not be suprised.
IMO I think the councilman overstepped by taking things from the graves. Perhaps he should have paid his own respects by placing US flags along with the confederate flags. I think that would have been the best option to counter the political speech of the daughters of the confederacy. I wonder how that group would like that symbolism, I would guess that they would be the ones taking things from the graves then.
Its a democracy, counter political speech with your own
Which just leads to more, often bigger, problems.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I can see how a black person would get pissed off when a confederate flag is placed on the graves of confederate soldiers who were fighting to keep slavery. When the "daughters of the confederacy" placed those confederate flags on the graves what they are doing is political speech and they should expect a reaction, they definitely should not be suprised.
IMO I think the councilman overstepped by taking things from the graves. Perhaps he should have paid his own respects by placing US flags along with the confederate flags. I think that would have been the best option to counter the political speech of the daughters of the confederacy. I wonder how that group would like that symbolism, I would guess that they would be the ones taking things from the graves then.
Its a democracy, counter political speech with your own
An obvious example in this case would be if those offended put up their own placards around the cemetery denouncing the confederate flag and calling everyone supporting it a racist. This could obviously lead to even greater offence and end up causing an huge escalation of what is really a very minor issue.
So, are you suggesting that policies should be put into place that effectively silence opposition? That is, essentially, what you're suggesting by banning the placing of Confederate flags but allowing the regular U.S. flags.Bertster7 wrote:
Which just leads to more, often bigger, problems.
An obvious example in this case would be if those offended put up their own placards around the cemetery denouncing the confederate flag and calling everyone supporting it a racist. This could obviously lead to even greater offence and end up causing an huge escalation of what is really a very minor issue.
No. I'm suggesting things that are offensive to the majority should be confined to private locations and that things potentially dangerous to the country as a whole should be banned.Turquoise wrote:
So, are you suggesting that policies should be put into place that effectively silence opposition? That is, essentially, what you're suggesting by banning the placing of Confederate flags but allowing the regular U.S. flags.Bertster7 wrote:
Which just leads to more, often bigger, problems.
An obvious example in this case would be if those offended put up their own placards around the cemetery denouncing the confederate flag and calling everyone supporting it a racist. This could obviously lead to even greater offence and end up causing an huge escalation of what is really a very minor issue.
I don't think that's even remotely like silencing opposition, nor do I think it is a particularly controversial viewpoint.
I believe people should be free to express their opinions, but not necessarily free to promote them.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-25 09:42:55)
Well, plots in graveyards are private, even in public cemeteries. Now, if you're referring to "private" in a figurative sense, I know what you're saying.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I'm suggesting things that are offensive to the majority should be confined to private locations and that things potentially dangerous to the country as a whole should be banned.Turquoise wrote:
So, are you suggesting that policies should be put into place that effectively silence opposition? That is, essentially, what you're suggesting by banning the placing of Confederate flags but allowing the regular U.S. flags.Bertster7 wrote:
Which just leads to more, often bigger, problems.
An obvious example in this case would be if those offended put up their own placards around the cemetery denouncing the confederate flag and calling everyone supporting it a racist. This could obviously lead to even greater offence and end up causing an huge escalation of what is really a very minor issue.
I don't think that's even remotely like silencing opposition, nor do I think it is a particularly controversial viewpoint.
But again, it seems like a slippery slope to outlaw certain forms of expression just because they are offensive.
Let me give a better example. Someone mentioned here one time that they found it hypocritical for people to get upset over Mexican flags or symbols being displayed at businesses or on cars while they were ok with other forms of ethnic pride (like Italian or Irish flags).
So, due to things like illegal immigration, a lot of resentment is pointed toward Mexicans here, regardless of their actual legality. Let's say the majority of a community was offended by Mexican flags placed on graves of Mexican-Americans, but they were ok with Italian flags. Would you support banning the placement of Mexican flags while still allowing the Italian ones?
Plots are private, but they are still visible to the public in the rest of a public area. There is no getting around that. Perhaps they could have a wall built around them or something like that (obviously not a wall round each plot, because that'd be completely impractical). In which case I'd be fine with it.Turquoise wrote:
Well, plots in graveyards are private, even in public cemeteries. Now, if you're referring to "private" in a figurative sense, I know what you're saying.Bertster7 wrote:
No. I'm suggesting things that are offensive to the majority should be confined to private locations and that things potentially dangerous to the country as a whole should be banned.Turquoise wrote:
So, are you suggesting that policies should be put into place that effectively silence opposition? That is, essentially, what you're suggesting by banning the placing of Confederate flags but allowing the regular U.S. flags.
I don't think that's even remotely like silencing opposition, nor do I think it is a particularly controversial viewpoint.
But again, it seems like a slippery slope to outlaw certain forms of expression just because they are offensive.
Let me give a better example. Someone mentioned here one time that they found it hypocritical for people to get upset over Mexican flags or symbols being displayed at businesses or on cars while they were ok with other forms of ethnic pride (like Italian or Irish flags).
So, due to things like illegal immigration, a lot of resentment is pointed toward Mexicans here, regardless of their actual legality. Let's say the majority of a community was offended by Mexican flags placed on graves of Mexican-Americans, but they were ok with Italian flags. Would you support banning the placement of Mexican flags while still allowing the Italian ones?
I think I remember the thread you are talking about there - as I recall it, it was about the US flag being flown higher than other flags on public buildings.
I would dispute your point over flags, because I find it hard to believe people are going to care about a flag relevant to a business being flown. Irish flags on Irish pubs, Italian flags on Italian restaurants, Mexican flags on Mexican restaurants - I see no difference. What I think you might be refering to is Mexican flags being displayed where they are not relevant, which isn't directly comparable to the other two instances.
But in the case of graves, it's directly relevant. The example I used posed the question of whether or not something should be banned because the majority find it offensive.Bertster7 wrote:
Plots are private, but they are still visible to the public in the rest of a public area. There is no getting around that. Perhaps they could have a wall built around them or something like that (obviously not a wall round each plot, because that'd be completely impractical). In which case I'd be fine with it.
I think I remember the thread you are talking about there - as I recall it, it was about the US flag being flown higher than other flags on public buildings.
I would dispute your point over flags, because I find it hard to believe people are going to care about a flag relevant to a business being flown. Irish flags on Irish pubs, Italian flags on Italian restaurants, Mexican flags on Mexican restaurants - I see no difference. What I think you might be refering to is Mexican flags being displayed where they are not relevant, which isn't directly comparable to the other two instances.
There are many border towns in America that have a lot of racial tension with Mexicans. So, given this tension, a majority white community with a significant Mexican population could feasibly run into this issue at a graveyard. So again, would you allow the banning of one ethnic flag while still allowing others, if it matched what the majority was ok with?
It's not an ethnic flag, it's a national flag.Turquoise wrote:
But in the case of graves, it's directly relevant. The example I used posed the question of whether or not something should be banned because the majority find it offensive.Bertster7 wrote:
Plots are private, but they are still visible to the public in the rest of a public area. There is no getting around that. Perhaps they could have a wall built around them or something like that (obviously not a wall round each plot, because that'd be completely impractical). In which case I'd be fine with it.
I think I remember the thread you are talking about there - as I recall it, it was about the US flag being flown higher than other flags on public buildings.
I would dispute your point over flags, because I find it hard to believe people are going to care about a flag relevant to a business being flown. Irish flags on Irish pubs, Italian flags on Italian restaurants, Mexican flags on Mexican restaurants - I see no difference. What I think you might be refering to is Mexican flags being displayed where they are not relevant, which isn't directly comparable to the other two instances.
There are many border towns in America that have a lot of racial tension with Mexicans. So, given this tension, a majority white community with a significant Mexican population could feasibly run into this issue at a graveyard. So again, would you allow the banning of one ethnic flag while still allowing others, if it matched what the majority was ok with?
A) I don't believe the majority would find it offensive, because that would be extremely stupid. I cannot envisage any scenario where that would be the case, so you are dealing entirely in unlikely hypotheticals.
B) I've never suggested banning things because the majority find them offensive, just controlling them. By all means have whatever flags you want on whatever you want. But not on public display. Have dedicated areas perhaps, so it's not forced in everyone elses face.
Flagrantly causing offence to the majority of the populace is never a good idea.
Visit a typical border town. You'll feel differently.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not an ethnic flag, it's a national flag.
A) I don't believe the majority would find it offensive, because that would be extremely stupid. I cannot envisage any scenario where that would be the case, so you are dealing entirely in unlikely hypotheticals.
I would agree that offending people for the sake of offending is not wise at all, but to outlaw something just because it's offensive is even less wise. I don't think it's always necessary to control offensive things either.Bertster7 wrote:
B) I've never suggested banning things because the majority find them offensive, just controlling them. By all means have whatever flags you want on whatever you want. But not on public display. Have dedicated areas perhaps, so it's not forced in everyone elses face.
Flagrantly causing offence to the majority of the populace is never a good idea.
Here's another example -- would you support banning the burning of the American flag? Most Americans are offended by that, but it is a form of expression. I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm not going to outlaw it.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-04-25 10:25:36)
Why is it even less wise?Turquoise wrote:
Visit a typical border town. You'll feel differently.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not an ethnic flag, it's a national flag.
A) I don't believe the majority would find it offensive, because that would be extremely stupid. I cannot envisage any scenario where that would be the case, so you are dealing entirely in unlikely hypotheticals.I would agree that offending people for the sake of offending is not wise at all, but to outlaw something just because it's offensive is even less wise.Bertster7 wrote:
B) I've never suggested banning things because the majority find them offensive, just controlling them. By all means have whatever flags you want on whatever you want. But not on public display. Have dedicated areas perhaps, so it's not forced in everyone elses face.
Flagrantly causing offence to the majority of the populace is never a good idea.
Here's another example -- would you support banning the burning of the American flag? Most Americans are offended by that, but it is a form of expression. I wouldn't do it myself, but I'm not going to outlaw it.
There are countless things that are banned because they are offensive. Do you have laws regarding obscene or lewd behaviour? Is there any other reason for that to be banned?
I would support banning the public burning of American flags in an offensive manner, because that would just be doing it as an inflamatory gesture designed to cause offence. I would not support a blanket ban on burning American flags.
Well, I'll put it this way. The further we go in the direction of banning speech, the trickier it becomes.Bertster7 wrote:
Why is it even less wise?
There are countless things that are banned because they are offensive. Do you have laws regarding obscene or lewd behaviour? Is there any other reason for that to be banned?
I would support banning the public burning of American flags in an offensive manner, because that would just be doing it as an inflamatory gesture designed to cause offence. I would not support a blanket ban on burning American flags.
Let's say we did make the ban for burning flags (even a non-blanket ban). Many Muslims apparently get upset when their religion is insulted, and various European governments have essentially banned insulting Islam. The EU is even looking into something about this.
If we ban the burning of American flags, that makes the argument for banning anything else offensive stronger. If we banned the insulting of Islam, then banning the insulting of Christianity would be next.
Over enough time, if anything remotely offensive is banned, then the power of the government becomes quite vast in the realm of speech. After all, when dealing with abstract things like this, who decides what's offensive? It isn't simply a vote by the majority. They don't hold referendums on these issues.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'd much rather live in a rude society than one too afraid to say or do anything offensive.
This is what it all boils down to.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'll put it this way. The further we go in the direction of banning speech, the trickier it becomes.Bertster7 wrote:
Why is it even less wise?
There are countless things that are banned because they are offensive. Do you have laws regarding obscene or lewd behaviour? Is there any other reason for that to be banned?
I would support banning the public burning of American flags in an offensive manner, because that would just be doing it as an inflamatory gesture designed to cause offence. I would not support a blanket ban on burning American flags.
Let's say we did make the ban for burning flags (even a non-blanket ban). Many Muslims apparently get upset when their religion is insulted, and various European governments have essentially banned insulting Islam. The EU is even looking into something about this.
If we ban the burning of American flags, that makes the argument for banning anything else offensive stronger. If we banned the insulting of Islam, then banning the insulting of Christianity would be next.
Over enough time, if anything remotely offensive is banned, then the power of the government becomes quite vast in the realm of speech. After all, when dealing with abstract things like this, who decides what's offensive? It isn't simply a vote by the majority. They don't hold referendums on these issues.
I guess what it comes down to is that I'd much rather live in a rude society than one too afraid to say or do anything offensive.
No one is banning insulting Islam. There are laws in place in many European countries banning inciting racial or religious hatred. That's very different to banning insulting Islam. All such laws in place in the UK (I'm not so familiar with the laws of other European countries) cover all religions.
We are not really talking about banning stuff here anyway. You are not making the important distinction between banning things and imposing restrictions on things. People find sex offensive, obviously sex isn't illegal, but doing it in public is. Do you oppose that as an infringement of your right to fuck wherever you want? How far do you want to go?