reversal?

[TMA_1]

First of all, I would like to say that all those racists, assholes, and all around bad people are worth crap in my opinion, but I have been thinking of something.

It used to be that the minorities were the underdog. They had to fight to win their freedoms and by God, they deserved them more than anything. Now though, there are laws prohibiting the free speech and practice of beliefs of racist groups like the KKK. They are not allowed to go on rallies often, and cannot speak their mind. Counties and states try to use small laws and manipulate the system in order to keep them from voicing. Of course they are wrong! what I am saying though is, once we prohibit the voice of ANY Single person, arent we degading the practices of western culture? (I use western culture lightly) Arent we breaking a sacred foundation of free speech for all? Many times these idiots speak violently and harshly, but almost never to the point of inciting riots and the like. Most of the time they do not break any laws. Why is it then that they are prohibited at time form using their rights just like say, a woman's interest group? There are many evil and discriminatory groups out there that have this problem. Whenever I try to state this idea though thatthey should be able to have full immunity under the law as long asthey dont break the law, I am called a racist! I just dont know. What do you guys think? I am just curious.

Frankly, this is one of many reasons I have trouble with a democracy or democratic republic that holds to an assembily or parlimentary system. Dont comment on that though.lol it will only lead to off topic stuff. you can IM me though, I like chatting about that stuff too.hehe

[Navaros]

you're right that the lack of Free Speech in this world is a crime against humanity. God gave every man the right to say whatever he chooses, yet the evil laws of man see fit to steal that God-given right

[Anathema]

About a year ago we had this guy Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands saying stuff like "if it were up to me, not a single muslim would be allowed to settle in the Netherlands" (basicly saying stuff like that is punishable by law in the Netherlands but people are almost never convicted for it)

I don't think we should start a witch hunt for racists and the like, but I do think that we shouldn't allow them to take them into politics because their ideas are against the constitution, wich is there for a reason.

[SurlyPIG]

What bugs me even more, and this is mostly just in the US, is the government enforced affirmitive action programs that do everything from reducing minimum grade averages for minorities in post-secondary educational institutes to enforcing racial minority quotas in all workplaces - even in the military.

Now I think it started out with great intentions, to reduce the disparity between ethnic minorities in the US, but this is NOT the way to go about it! I would think that it even has the opposite effect of what it's intended to do, that minorities see it as an unwanted 'leg-up' and don't take advantage of such things as a result.

My mom works with a lady whose nursing school had a minimum GPA of 3.0 for whites and 2.0 for ethnic minorities (first nations natives were the only real minority in this area of Canada). Now my quesiton is, which person do you want as your nurse? The one with the 2.0 or the 3.0?

I think more steps should be taken to encourage equality, but the street runs two ways and this is going too far...

Back on topic, idiot racists can say whatever they want. It's up to the rest of society to not listen. It's up to the media to totally ignore them, it's up to advertisers to refuse them as clients, it's up real estate investors to refuse them points of operation.

[Egeides]

I think that blocking someone's ideas should be done only in one case: it's promoting violence (or immoral stuff). Not "it is saying something that could be interpreted as promoting violence", not "it is saying that this is not immoral" but really a clear promotion of violence.

There are some reasons to this:

1- If we accept to block some people's ideas, it could be used in some tumultuous days in a bad way.

2- If we block some's ideas, it gives the right to another to say he'll block ours if the majority accepts. The problem here is mainly that to look like having the majority's acceptance is sometimes possible (or simply to say you have it, like in royalist regimes sometimes).

3- Even if we disagree, I believe that we should not be able to say to someone what to say, only to block him when he's walking on someone else's freedom. "The limit of one's freedom is the other's freedom" basically.

4- If these groups aren't listened, how do you expect that they'll be countered??? In an environment of ideological confrontation and debate, I believe that the truth has more chances to get out of it. Maybe some will be convinced by these groups, but the opposit may have more chances. The strengt of some of these groups is exactly that they are closed from exterior arguments (since the exterior never got their arguments so has nothing to counter except to convince themselves).

Personally, if I get to talk to a fascist, racist or else, I'll be happy to meet him so that I may understand better the twist of his mind and maybe even bring him some new stuff I believe is beneficial (up to him to see, but I'd still hope for an amelioration).

Now about this idea of advantaging some so they get better jobs, I'm against in all cases where it gives more chances to some than others (quotas are sometimes there simply to represent how much minorities there would statistically be if it was just). BUT, I would twist this thing otherwise by puting the same money into bringing them to TRULY be better. More adapted programs, etc. They tried some programs like this in UK, and it was successful: they took some VERY violent kids and with their consent tried to bring them into very good schools and so on. In some cases these guys kept doing bad stuff, but they nonetheless were getting better.

PS: I'm not exactly sure about how it should be applied though. It's still in construction in my mind.

[ordos45]

About a year ago we had this guy Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands saying stuff like "if it were up to me, not a single muslim would be allowed to settle in the Netherlands" (basicly saying stuff like that is punishable by law in the Netherlands but people are almost never convicted for it)

I don't think we should start a witch hunt for racists and the like, but I do think that we shouldn't allow them to take them into politics because their ideas are against the constitution, wich is there for a reason.

And no offense, but isn't that probably one of the reasons he was assassinated? For those of you who like good articles, go out and get last month's Readers Digest. It had a good article on how you're a racist anymore if you don't pay attention to color, instead of if you do.

[Anathema]

The guy who assasinated him supposedly did it because he wanted to protect vulnerable groups in society.

Also, wether or not he was a racist depends on the definition of it. He didn't think black people were inferior or anything, just disliked religious fundamentalism, islam in particular.

[Caid Ivik]

Hasn't God also gave us a right to make our state and own laws - based on His law? State is a thing made to protect human rights, even if it brakes someone other, who abuses his freedom to attack others.

[TMA_1]

I see where you are coming from earthnuker and you are right that it is wrong. see I believe what you do actually, I am saying that in countries that support free speech for all like america and others, that there is a double standard. I think that this causes problems and often like acelethal said, affermitive action and the like are prettty horrible at times.

[Hawat]

Unfortunately i can't add anything new to that discussion. I want only to point out that i can understand and also support the prohibition of rascist groups (or the prohibition of free speech), when i have to read things like this "www.resistance.org"... If you give this forums just a look (and please don't spend to much time there or try to discuss with them, there is no sense) perhaps you can understand me.

In my eyes the problem isn't the violation of human rights, but the effect of rascist propaganda. Intelligent and educated(though intelligence doesn't protect against stupidity, there are plenty educated and intelligent people amongst rascist groups) people can probably see the lies/disinformation, but i doubt a relatively uneducated person, who might also have social problem, can see them. In fact he could also start to sympathise with rascist ideology.

Don't get me wrong, i don't want to say "dumb people could believe them, so forbid their right of free speech". As long as this propaganda can influence people it can't be tolerated (my opinion).

[nemafakei]

There are a few degrees of speech to be considered:

- Simply proposing a political, religious, or any other view.

- Broadcast of vulgar material

- Inciting hatred and/or violence

There are grey areas, and so therein, a case-by-case bases should be enforced.

The fundamental criterion is inevitably "will this speaker be more destructive than any possible benefit?".