RE: Shots fired in Dallas of mohammed cartoons.
May 4, 2015 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: May 4, 2015 at 5:33 pm by Hatshepsut.)
(May 4, 2015 at 5:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Allan is so powerful he needs people with guns to silence his critics apparently.
Maybe he just needs to tell his followers that if Muhammad was tough enough to handle the Battle of the Trench, he can probably handle a cartoon no sweat.
(May 4, 2015 at 4:34 pm)Nestor Wrote: I'm curious if anyone has or will hold "free speech events" in Europe to advocate people's rights to deny the Holocaust (where 14 nations outlaw such rhetoric and have even imprisoned "offenders") ... on the principle that no one should be treated as criminals for expressing a point of view...
(May 4, 2015 at 5:12 pm)Chuck Wrote: So forceful suppression of certain speech may be completely essential for the preservation of freedom of other speech.
In the USA it's more important to keep neo-Nazis away from guns than away from their soapboxes, although in past we've been slow to act, waiting until there's a confrontation at an armed compound to ring the bell. I don't know about Europe. There's still quite a bit of Nazi sentiment circulating around Germany and the Nordic countries and these governments have simply decided that they will not allow a Nazi party to form. Whereupon banning their public talk becomes how they intend to ensure this.
We do a somewhat similar thing here in the USA by banning gang members from gathering together or making gang signs or speeches in public places. Ogden, Utah has a court injunction against the Ogden Trece gang with such provisions plus a curfew. And it allows police to decide who's gang and who isn't. This of course doesn't ban an idea per se; it's the group that's targeted. Yet groups and ideas go hand in hand. The gang injunction is probably just as intrusive on civil liberties, especially as once someone's on that police gang list, it can be a long row's howing to get off it.
