NationStates

Jamzmania wrote:

Trumpostan wrote:
Like how liberals lambast Colin Kaepernick for his protests and tell him to be a "real American" and stand up for the flag and the anthem?

Oh wait, that is conservatives.

Yet no one is saying Colin Kaepernick should be jailed.

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign- ... aepernick/

But some are saying he should be "disciplined", whatever that means.

Almost 82k of them already.

Trumpostan wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Yet no one is saying Colin Kaepernick should be jailed.

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign- ... aepernick/

But some are saying he should be "disciplined", whatever that means.

Almost 82k of them already.

This is the same NFL that disciplines people for unsportsmanlike behavior and the such. The NFL is not the government and it has every right to enforce its own codes of conduct. You can disagree about whether he should be disciplined, but he will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property.

The amount of people who think there should be a Little Old Lady exemption for everything from hate speech laws to war crime trials is truly hilarious. The usual suspects were crying "But he's so old!" when a former nazi in his 80s was arrested a few months back. It's insipid.

Trumpostan wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Yet no one is saying Colin Kaepernick should be jailed.

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign- ... aepernick/

But some are saying he should be "disciplined", whatever that means.

Almost 82k of them already.

The NFL is not a government agency. The first Ammendment does not apply to it.
Any private employer or organization can discipline you for what you say. Freedom of speech only applies to the law. It does not protect against other social consequences.

Trumpostan wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Yet no one is saying Colin Kaepernick should be jailed.

https://www.afa.net/action-alerts/sign- ... aepernick/

But some are saying he should be "disciplined", whatever that means.

Almost 82k of them already.

Yeah; disciplined by the NFL, not the Feds

Lies and Ignorance wrote:The amount of people who think there should be a Little Old Lady exemption for everything from hate speech laws to war crime trials is truly hilarious. The usual suspects were crying "But he's so old!" when a former nazi in his 80s was arrested a few months back. It's insipid.

The point is that this law violates the basic right to free speech.

Nobody should be punished for having the wrong opinion/ saying the wrong thing. No matter what it is, free speech should always be protected.

Jamzmania wrote:

Lies and Ignorance wrote:The amount of people who think there should be a Little Old Lady exemption for everything from hate speech laws to war crime trials is truly hilarious. The usual suspects were crying "But he's so old!" when a former nazi in his 80s was arrested a few months back. It's insipid.

The point is that this law violates the basic right to free speech.

There is no such thing as an absolute right.

Jamzmania wrote:

Lies and Ignorance wrote:The amount of people who think there should be a Little Old Lady exemption for everything from hate speech laws to war crime trials is truly hilarious. The usual suspects were crying "But he's so old!" when a former nazi in his 80s was arrested a few months back. It's insipid.

The point is that this law violates the basic right to free speech.

No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Herargon wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:The point is that this law violates the basic right to free speech.

No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Can we call their concept of Freedom of Speech bullshit?

Minzerland II wrote:

Herargon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Can we call their concept of Freedom of Speech bullshit?

Of course you can.
Doesn't make it true, though.

Risottia wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:Can we call their concept of Freedom of Speech bullshit?

Of course you can.
Doesn't make it true, though.

Then I hereby call it bullshit, whether true or false.

Minzerland II wrote:

Risottia wrote:Of course you can.
Doesn't make it true, though.

Then I hereby call it bullshit, whether true or false.

Your objection has been noted.
If the Council of General has no other items to discuss I shall call this meeting ajourned.

Alvecia wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:Then I hereby call it bullshit, whether true or false.

Your objection has been noted.
If the Council of General has no other items to discuss I shall call this meeting ajourned.

Good. I don't feel like quibbling right now.

Lies and Ignorance wrote:The amount of people who think there should be a Little Old Lady exemption for everything from hate speech laws to war crime trials is truly hilarious. The usual suspects were crying "But he's so old!" when a former nazi in his 80s was arrested a few months back. It's insipid.

Pretty much this.

Either the ban is right or wrong - age isn't a factor.

I say it's wrong because I value freedom, even the freedom to be wrong, but there's no little old lady/little old man exceptions.

I don't particularly believe that an arrest was necessary, but she should have been "corrected" (or whatever the correct word is) in a way

Maccav wrote:I don't particularly believe that an arrest was necessary, but she should have been "corrected" (or whatever the correct word is) in a way

Mind worms?

Galloism wrote:

Maccav wrote:I don't particularly believe that an arrest was necessary, but she should have been "corrected" (or whatever the correct word is) in a way

Mind worms?

Hell yeah

Herargon wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:The point is that this law violates the basic right to free speech.

No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

Jamzmania wrote:

Herargon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

So I take it we're back to "how dare other countries not be exactly like America"?

Jamzmania wrote:Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

There is practically no country in the world that has totally free speech. Each country's exclusions to the right of free speech (in those that have that right) always reflect what that country finds to be unacceptable. Holocaust denial is persecutable in a significant amount of countries, not just Germany. Belgium, France, Australia, Greece, Poland, Romania, and numerous others. In fact, in a number of these same countries, the very denial of any genocide is punishable by law.

What value is there in allowing hateful speech? Sure, you could argue that it's violating free speech. To deny the holocaust is to downplay the horrible, horrible crimes of an ideology that still has followers across the globe, and to dishonour and, in my opinion, disgrace the memory of every individual who was a victim of those crimes, alive or dead.

You need only look at the people who still believe in the Stalinist ideology (in Russia and abroad), despite the horrible crimes of that regime, to understand why Germans shouldn't believe in leniency in discussing the Holocaust. And that is why Holocaust Denial should not be protected under free speech.

Jamzmania wrote:

Herargon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The concept of the freedom of speech in Germany is vastly different from in the US. I've already explained that just a few pages back.


EDIT: adding to that, the law is equal for everyone in a country like Germany. Everyone there has to obey the law.

Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

I'm not allowed to call for someone's murder in the US. Therefore, freedom of speech doesn't exist in the US.

Acrea wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

There is practically no country in the world that has totally free speech. Each country's exclusions to the right of free speech (in those that have that right) always reflect what that country finds to be unacceptable. Holocaust denial is persecutable in a significant amount of countries, not just Germany. Belgium, France, Australia, Greece, Poland, Romania, and numerous others. In fact, in a number of these same countries, the very denial of any genocide is punishable by law.

What value is there in allowing hateful speech? Sure, you could argue that it's violating free speech. To deny the holocaust is to downplay the horrible, horrible crimes of an ideology that still has followers across the globe, and to dishonour and, in my opinion, disgrace the memory of every individual who was a victim of those crimes, alive or dead.

You need only look at the people who still believe in the Stalinist ideology (in Russia and abroad), despite the horrible crimes of that regime, to understand why Germans shouldn't believe in leniency in discussing the Holocaust. And that is why Holocaust Denial should not be protected under free speech.

Banning opinions is an objective violation of the right to free speech. It is true that no country is perfect, however some are worse than others, and a country which literally criminalizes certain opinions definitely fall into the "worse" category. The best way to fight Holocaust denial is to challenge it in public. If anything, criminalizing Holocaust denial is more likely to legitimize it. "Here's what the government DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW" videos on YouTube might seem more credible is the government will literally arrest its maker for it.

Baltenstein wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

I'm not allowed to call for someone's murder in the US. Therefore, freedom of speech doesn't exist in the US.

The reason calling for illegal action is illegal in the U.S. is because it is a call to action, not an expression of opinion or views.

For example, if someone were to say "Jews are scum," they won't be arrested. If someone were to say, "Jews are scum, let's all go and kill them," they will be arrested.

The reason calling for illegal action is illegal in the U.S. is because it is a call to action, not an expression of opinion or views.

A completely subjective differentation. In both cases, freedom of speech is being prohibited.

Baltenstein wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Their concept is wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, and I know that their concept of "free" speech is not free at all. They should abandon all pretense of having any form of freedom of speech if are to continue to enforce laws like this.

I'm not allowed to call for someone's murder in the US. Therefore, freedom of speech doesn't exist in the US.

I screamed there was a fire in a movie theater and got arrested, this is the worst kind of discrimination!