Liberty 4 sale @ any price. Well worn. Owner has no use for same. Apply Washington DC

[stormbind]

I have, on many occations, heard Americans argue that "Freedom of speech" is not the same as "Freedom to be heard". I don't quite follow

It is my believe that "hate" cannot be protected under freedom of speech laws because it causes resentment and retaliation. It is therefore a risk to national security and other personal freedoms, and should therefore be tried as a criminal act of a most severe nature

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by stormbind
I have, on many occations, heard Americans argue that "Freedom of speech" is not the same as "Freedom to be heard". I don't quite follow

can't say i have ever heard that, care to clarify?

Originally posted by stormbind
It is my believe that "hate" cannot be protected under freedom of speech laws because it causes resentment and retaliation. It is therefore a risk to national security and other personal freedoms, and should therefore be tried as a criminal act of a most severe nature

The problem is, who defines "hate speech"? Europe has taken upon itself to do so, and this can result in many problems. Under their current practices, it is not unthinkable that espousing an ideology preaching an end to all social programs could be ruled "hateful". I won't take issue with the banning of speech that actually incites people to violence, but IMHO many European governments have gone too far. For example, one should be able to say that Islam is a despicable religion that only encourages violence against the West. One should not be able to say that people should harm the followers of Islam. There is a distinction between the two statements that many European nations seem to ignore.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
Those rights SHOULD be extended to visitors.

Thanks for your input. They are if they're taken to Federal court, which they are in every circumstance that doesn't involve terrorist suspects.
The Patriot law is a revision in Federal Law (doesn't effect the Constitution) which revokes the priveledge of that extension to terrorist suspects.

Originally posted by stormbind
How would you feel if, on visiting England, we put you behind bars and denied you your right to a fair trial because you were foreign!?

Screwed. But then, who cares about my feelings when your security is (allegedly) on the line.

Of course, I'm a British citizen so I'd take it to court

Originally posted by stormbind
If you think you have too many immigrants, take a look at poor little and overcrowded UK. We have a 10 year backlog

I like immigrants. I want more of them. They just have to follow the rules as closely than the rest of us.

Originally posted by stormbind
The hypocrytical part is complaining that the America's trust had been broken, when your criteria for selecting immigrants is based entirely on their financial worth.

First of all thats BS, both my parents became citizens when they were at about poverty level.
Second of all, that is completely unrelated. What does trust and wealth have to do with one another? Someone of any status can break our trust.

Originally posted by stormbind
If the rules on entry put emphasis on testing people's good will then the statement would have a case... but clearly, under the current politics, being trustworthy is not a requirement for becoming a resident.

Citizenship it kind of is. Its a long and detailed process where gauging character is very important.
Being rich doesn't get you a bye, but the circumstances that DO are much more encompassing than simply having wealth.

Originally posted by stormbind
I dissagree. Giving the people the choice of voting on policy would be democratic, what you describe sounds more like a republic. IMHO.

It is a republic. A democratic one.
This was brought up when someone mentioned Patriot Act is undemocratic. I've still yet to hear anyone point out how it detaining foreigners without trail has any effect on the democratic process.

Originally posted by Elden
Laws are laws for all, not just Americans - what your basically saying is foreigners should follow your laws but NOT be protected and treated fairly by them. You are a hypocrite if you think that.

Hypocrit? Why? I'm not asking for special treatment under other circumstances... I'm quite consistant in my belief that foreigners don't allow all the same rights as American citizens, including the right to vote, or to a fair and speedy trial. We extend the latter rights as a courtesy in all cases which don't go to Federal Court and don't involve terrorism.

Originally posted by stormbind
Is that the same as pledging allegiance to the flag...? I had to do that every day in the USA. I'm certainly not anti-US, but I most certainly did not have any allegiance that repulsive flag (too square; doesn't fit my personality) and hated the event.

I never said the pledge.
And no, it isn't the same one.

Originally posted by stormbind
I tried singing the British national anthem instead but it was not appreciated by the teacher

No reason to be disrespectful...

Originally posted by stormbind
Regardless, back to the topic... you don't like the test which everyone takes. We may not agree on what the ideal policy is, but we agree that the current policy should be revised.

The test I like. The Pledge I don't.

I don't particularly care for immigration policy, I think its too jumbled, complex, and difficult.
Don't particularly care for most aspects of the Patriot Act either. But denying foreign terrorism suspects for the time being without taking them to Federal Court... really not bothering me right now.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
First of all thats BS, both my parents became citizens when they were at about poverty level.
Second of all, that is completely unrelated. What does trust and wealth have to do with one another? Someone of any status can break our trust.

Apples and Oranges. We need to emphasise the difference between resident and citizen.

There are other ways of becoming residents. I think... having a job (actually, paying tax) for four years will suffice, after that your place on US soil is pretty much secured, becoming a citizen unlocks few additional benefits.

The terrorists had resedential status. My point is that it should be more difficult to become a resident. It is currently too easy for the rich to become residents, but wealth should not even be a criteria. Persons working for Bin Laden have no shortage of cash.

Actually, I thought it was disrespectful to make a non-American pledge allegiance. Effectively, I was forced to lie to God

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
can't say i have ever heard that, care to clarify?

It's actually been repeated on the Internet in many American forums. I guess it's hypocritical admins. I've not heard it in an official context which I probably why I'll never understand it

Originally posted by NY Hoya
The problem is, who defines "hate speech"?

I think it should fall to the country in which it is said. Each nation has it's own laws.

Judgement falls to judges, a hard job that I wouldn't do! I dislike judges btw. Only been to court once and the idiot judge said that the contract could not be used as evidence because I didn't supply the copy of it. Wtf?! I was really pissed, I still am... I want twist that idiots head off... ....

I'm depressed now

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by stormbind
Judgement falls to judges, a hard job that I wouldn't do! I dislike judges btw. Only been to court once and the idiot judge said that the contract could not be used as evidence because I didn't supply the copy of it. Wtf?! I was really pissed, I still am... I want twist that idiots head off... ....

I'm depressed now

hmm, interesting take on things. I suppose I should have read the monthly report on new posters before debating you. j/k of course...

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
The terrorists had resedential status.

The dead ones.

Originally posted by stormbind
My point is that it should be more difficult to become a resident. It is currently too easy for the rich to become residents, but wealth should not even be a criteria. Persons working for Bin Laden have no shortage of cash.

Hey, if we're profiting off it, doesn't really bother me. That objective of the criteria is to ensure immigrants are contributing something. Residents are beneficiaries of entitlements, and we're not rich enough to dole out benefits to anyone in the world that can stay here for a few years.

Originally posted by stormbind
Actually, I thought it was disrespectful to make a non-American pledge allegiance. Effectively, I was forced to lie to God

You didn't have to say it. They can't force you, legally.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
Hey, if we're profiting off it, doesn't really bother me.

Even if there's a lack of respect for national security?

Originally posted by Greadius
You didn't have to say it. They can't force you, legally.

Sons of b!...s
Was I allowed to just stay in my seat?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
Sons of b!...s
Was I allowed to just stay in my seat?

Legally, probably. But as a matter of respect you could have just stood there silently and I doubt anyone would have noticed or made a big deal out of it.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
It is a republic. A democratic one.
This was brought up when someone mentioned Patriot Act is undemocratic. I've still yet to hear anyone point out how it detaining foreigners without trail has any effect on the democratic process.

I cannot speak for another, but I suspect they may have meant it contradicts the current constitution and the ideals to which they have become accustomed.

It is a move away from human rights. It denies freedom.

I don't deny it would increase national security but which threats will it tackle, and at what cost?

It certainly wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 event, and it won't be responsible for stopping another case like it because it doesn't tackle the issue. Big scale events like 9/11 take a lot of planning which needs people to be have residence... tourists are not the big threat.

It will catch minor threats, but this may not be noticeable. It will result in otherwise innocent tourists who carry guns being locked up without bail.

The cost is a diplomatic one, it will upset a lot of foreignors and will cause unnecessary friction between the US and it's friends.

The planned legislation takes freedoms away from the wrong people. That's my argument.

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
...one should be able to say that Islam is a despicable religion that only encourages violence against the West. One should not be able to say that people should harm the followers of Islam. There is a distinction between the two statements that many European nations seem to ignore.

I don't think Islam is that way. From what I understand, it preaches peace and only fanatics warp matters.

Times have changed but the religions have not. In the Crusades, many prisoner Christians were not killed because it was seen that the two sides shared many ideals.

Chritians went to war in the name of God, despite Jesus preaching pacifism. Does this make Christianity an evil religion that that only encourages violence against the East? Or does it suggest that fanatical leaders warped the contents of the Bible for personal gain or through pride?

Saying that Islam is the cause of problems will be seen as an insult and could be interpreted as hate.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by stormbind
I cannot speak for another, but I suspect they may have meant it contradicts the current constitution and the ideals to which they have become accustomed.

No contradictions I can see. Have to be more specific.

Originally posted by stormbind
It is a move away from human rights. It denies freedom.

Absolute freedom for everyone is a bad thing. Some people loose their right of freedom by choices they make. We happen to be very intolerant of suspected terrorists right now.

Originally posted by stormbind
It certainly wouldn't have stopped the 9/11 event, and it won't be responsible for stopping another case like it because it doesn't tackle the issue. Big scale events like 9/11 take a lot of planning which needs people to be have residence... tourists are not the big threat.

We'll see. You may be right, but I'm not in the mood for taking chances so our foreign residencies with questionable connections can sleep safer at night. If I can sleep safer if they don't, its a good trade-off to me.

Originally posted by stormbind
It will catch minor threats, but this may not be noticeable. It will result in otherwise innocent tourists who carry guns being locked up without bail

Good. Innocent tourists don't carry guns. That is a crime within itself.

Originally posted by stormbind
The cost is a diplomatic one, it will upset a lot of foreignors and will cause unnecessary friction between the US and it's friends.

Our friends understand.
Our friends are doing similar crackdowns themselves, including Great Britian.
However, our friends don't have W. Bush at their helm so don't become a lightning rod for every politically marginalized activist.

Originally posted by stormbind
The planned legislation takes freedoms away from the wrong people. That's my argument.

Suspected terrorists are the wrong people?

 

[stormbind]

Originally posted by Greadius
Good. Innocent tourists don't carry guns. That is a crime within itself .... Suspected terrorists are the wrong people?

You're right about the tourists, but I couldn't think of a better example (still cannot) ... and I figured, for people in England where gun laws are tighter, perhaps they would go to the USA for relatively harmless practice or hunting or something.

Suspected terrorists are the right people, but I fear it will snag too many people who are not terrorists, and catch too few terrorists.

The whole idea sounds as though it's going to catch careless travellers, not organised terrorists. I think it's another case of the USA underestimating others (in this case, the terrorists). I think the law will be a waste of time.

I think we understand each others views now and I don't debate to change opinion, only to express a view or learn someone elses

Regarding the constitution, I don't know. Is there no guaranteed right to bail? If not, then perhaps it's just taking away an assumed freedom that people don't want to lose

 

[stormbind]

I'm really tired, the quality of my posts has been constantly degrading. My appologies. I go now

 

[vonork]

NY Hoya:

Sweden is about to forge ahead of Saskatchewan by passing a constitutional amendment banning all speech or materials opposing homosexuality. When it does, remarks that offend gays could bring a jail term of up to four years. Christians would not be allowed to speak out against homosexuality, even in churches.

You got that one wrong; you have all the right to say that you don't like homosexuality. To say that you think it's immoral and so on. What it is to do is to make it illegal to speak out in hate over homosexuality, like it is for people of different colours or religion and so...

I however think it's unnecessary to in law pick out groups like this, the only law you would need was one that made it illegal to try to steer hate against one group of people.

 

[Pongui]

This bit hasn't been discussed: "prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects"

That means that people can be made to disappear, right? The point seems to be to keep the American public from having knowledge of arrests and detentions. Why?

 

[stormbind]

I dunno, but it's going to cause an upsurge in the number of alien abductions!

 

[Noldodan]

"prohibit disclosure of information regarding people detained as terrorist suspects"

THATS scary. so now, not only can the government imprison people on suspicion, now they don't even have to TELL us about it? *shivers*

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by stormbind
I don't think Islam is that way. From what I understand, it preaches peace and only fanatics warp matters.

I never said i agreed with the statement, but that a person should be allowed to make such a statement without fear of being arrested.

Originally posted by stormbind
Saying that Islam is the cause of problems will be seen as an insult and could be interpreted as hate.

You don't see the problem here? "Could be interpreted as hate"? By whom? Who makes the decision as to what is "hateful"? And why exactly should "hateful" speech be illegal? Is there any clear limit in place here? It doesn't look like it. What if we make a law here in the U.S. declaring that the statement "All Republicans are evil" is a statement that incites hatred and fine or throw into jail anyone who utters those words?

Europe and America (to a lesser extent) are increasingly chipping away at the right to free expression. It's ok now, because it's only the racist homophobes who are prevented from free expression. What happens when these restrictions expand to include communist expression ("capitalist pigs") or certain religious speech ("all non-Muslims are heathens")? Both of those statements could certainly be seen as hateful by those targeted.

There is a clear line that can be drawn, and that line is where hateful speech incites violence. I.e., "Muslims are a bunch of terrorists, we should go out and vandalize Muslim mosques" should not be a legally acceptable statement. Saying "all Muslims are terrorists", while a despicable statement, should be allowed. If I understand US law correctly, this is approximately the line we have drawn to dictate what is appropriate and what is not.

The right to unfettered free speech was once a mainstay of American liberals and international leftists. Sadly, this is increasingly not the case.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

I didn't read the thread, because the first post left out some critical information, namely, you STILL have to convince a judge BEFORE ANY of those things can be enacted, so the bill of rights is not abridged in ANY way.

The opposition to the patriot act NEVER mentions this fact.